1951-03-12

Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members from Nova Scotia will tender their sympathy to my deskmate, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher), to the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) and to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), as well as to all other ardent curlers in the house, on the fact that teams representing those various places in the Canadian championship bowed to the Nova Scotia team in Halifax on Saturday last.
I am sure, sir, that all of them will join with us from Nova Scotia in tendering our congratulations to the Kentville rink consisting of Wallace Knock, Fred Dyke, George Hansen and Donald Oyler, a very youthful and, from the national standpoint, inexperienced team. They not only won the dominion championship, but won it in such a way that their record can never be broken, and probably will never be equalled.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, may I say how pleased and happy the city of Halifax and the province of Nova Scotia were to entertain those who participated in the Dominion curling championship. The bonspiel was a model of good feeling and good sportsmanship; and while it was not the role of the perfect host to win the championship we could not help taking a great deal of pleasure from that fact as well.


Mr. Cruickshank:: British Columbia was second.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 132, for the relief of Abraham Tar-ontchick, otherwise known as Abraham Turner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Mabel Caroline Lay Redburn McCormick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Jack Harold Frederick Grater.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Kathleen Merle McCullough McCallum.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Mary Margaret Urquhart Cuthbert Gilman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of Margaret Isabel Ward Green.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 138, for the relief of Rejeanne Laliberte Tinker.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Frederick John Pratt.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Arthur Frederick Albin Turner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of Maria Silvaggio Mazzalongo.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Jacqueline Yvonne Suzanne Stucker	Grant.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Ethelbert Deniston Joseph Bartholomew.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Ivy Elizabeth Whitehead Simpson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of Evelyn Elizabeth Hulbig Wilks.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Margaret Cameron Williams.-Mr. Winkler.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions of less than $25 per month?
2.	How many are in receipt of only the basic pension of $25 per month?
3.	How many are in receipt of non-contributory service pensions (a) $25.01 to $29.99 per month; (b) $30 to $39.99 per month; (c) $40 to $49.99 per month; (d) $50 to $59.99 per month; (e) $60 to $69.99 per month; (f) $70 to $79.99 per month; (g) $80 to 89.99 per month; (h) $90 to $99.99 per month; (i) $100 to $125 per month; fj) over $125 per month?
4.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions in part basic and in part contributory (a) $25 to $29.99 per month; (b) $30 to $39.99 per month; (c) $40 to $49.99 per month; (d) $50 to $59.99 per month; (e) $60 to $69.99 per month; (f) $70 to $79.99 per month; (g) $80 to $89.99 per month; (h) $90 to $99.99 per month; (i) $100 to $125 per month; (j) over $125 per month?


Mr. Benidickson:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	24 under C.N.R. prior plan.
2.	3,256.
3.	(a) $25.01 to $29.99 per month, 745; (b) $30.00 to $39.99 per month, 670; (c) $40.00 to $49.99 per month, 330; (d) $50.00 to $59.99 per month, 228; (e) $60.00 to $69.99 per month,

Questions
138; (f) $70.00 to $79.99 per month, 100; (g) $80.00 to $89.99 per month, 55; (h) $90.00 to $99.99 per month, 40; (i) $100.00 to $125.00 per month, 24; (j) over $125.00 per month, 80; total, 2,410.
4.	(a) $25,01 to $29.99 per month, 459; (b) $30.00 to $39.99 per month, 2,115; (c) $40.00 to $49.99 per month, 1,689; (d) $50.00 to $59.99 per month, 1,220; (e) $60.00 to $69.99 per month, 1,003; (f) $70.00 to $79.99 per month, 856; (g) $80.00 to $89.99 per month, 723; (h) $90.00 to $99.99 per month, 607; (i) $100.00 to $125.00 per month, 884; (j) over $125.00 per month, 1,177; total, 10,733.



Mr. Knowles:: 
William Moore Benidickson: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	(a) $125.01 to $199.99 per month-74;
(b)	$200 to $299.99 per month-4;	(c)
$300 to $399.99 per month-1;	(d) $400
to $499.99 per month-nil; (e) $500 or over per month-1; total-80.
2.	(a) $125.01 to $199.99 per month-1,008; (b) $200 to $299.99 per month-122; (c) $300 to $399.99 per month-22; (d) $400 to $499.99 per month-9; (e) $500 or over per month-16; total-1,177.
3.	Apart from pension payments under pension fund regulations (but not additional or supplemental thereto), four retirement annuities are being paid to retired employees as under: (a) $125.01 to $199.99 per month- nil; (h) $200 to $299.99 per month-3; (c) $300 to $399.99 per month-nil; (d) $400 to $499.99 per month-1; (e) $500 or over per month-nil; total

4.
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES Mr. Knowles:
1.	How many former employees or officials of the Canadian National Railways who, upon retirement, 
did not qualify for any pension under any established plan, are in receipt of retirement allowances?
2.	How many of these retirement allowances are $100 a month or over, how many are less than $100 a month, and what is the lowest amount of any such allowance?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	15.
2.	$100 a month or over-4; less than $100 a month-11; lowest amount of any such allowance-$25.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-PENSIONS
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What is the total number of persons employed by the Canadian National Railways?
2.	Of these, how many are eligible to contribute toward a supplemental pension in addition to the basic pension of $23 per month to which they will be entitled on retirement at age sixty-five?
3.	J5ow many are now contributing toward such a supplemental pension?
4.	How many Canadian National Railways employees, upon retirement, will qualify, according to their present status, for non-contributory service pensions?
5.	How many employees now working for the Canadian National Railways will be entitled on retirement, according to their present status, to only the basic pension of $25 per month?
6.	Is the basic pension of $25 per month available to all employees, and if so, on what conditions?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	On Canadian lines at December 31, 1950, 104,096.
2.	All except temporary employees and those who commenced after age fifty-five and those who are now contributing to other railway pension funds, viz.: 4,848 contributors to Intercolonial provident fund and 12 contributors to Grand Trunk Railway superannuation fund.
3.	Contributors to C.N.R. pension plan, 40,637; contributors to I.C.R. and P.E.I. provident fund, 4,848; contributors to G.T.R. superannuation, and provident fund association, 12.
4.	Service pensions are payable to employees who entered the service before attaining age fifty who at December 31, 1934, had at least ten years allowable service and at age sixty-five have at least fifteen years allowable service. It is not possible to say how many employees will meet these requirements.
5.	There is no record of the number of employees who on retirement will be entitled to only the basic pension of $25 per month. Approximately only 40 per cent of eligible employees are contributing to a supplementary pension.
6.	Basic pensions are payable to:

Questions


STRAIT OF CANSO BRIDGE
[Stage Direction]
(a)	employees who entered the service before December 31, 1934, who had less than ten years allowable service at that date and who have at least fifteen years allowable service at age sixty-five.
(b)	employees who entered the service after December 31, 1934, at not over age forty-five and who at age sixty-five have at least twenty years allowable service.

Mr. Thatcher:: What was the dollar value of defence contracts placed In (a) British Columbia; (b) Alberta; (c) Saskatchewan; (d) Manitoba; (e) Ontario; (f) Quebec; (g) New Brunswick; (h) Nova Scotia; (i) Prince Edward Island; (j) Newfoundland, during the tenth and eleventh months of the current fiscal year?


Mr. Mcllraith:: Mr. Speaker, a question very similar in form to this one was asked earlier this session, and the answer is to be found at page 452 of Hansard. It is not possible to get an accurate answer, by reason of the fact that in many cases orders for defence contracts are placed in one province and the address used by the firm contracting is in another. There are many examples of that sort of thing; I can give examples if the house wants them.
Another reason why it is not possible to get the information in accurate form is that it does not take any account of subcontracts. However full information is available about every contract over $5,000, and each two weeks a press release is issued giving a full list of such contracts. I suggest that that information is more useful and more accurate; it is readily available. Any answer that would be made to the question in its present form would be comparatively meaningless. I have arranged with the hon. member asking the question to have the copies of the public press releases sent to him. For that reason I ask that the question be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.


NEW BUILDING FOR PRINTING BUREAU
Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	What has been the total cost to date of the government printing bureau, Hull, Quebec?
2.	What is the estimated total cost?
3.	When will it be completed?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	$857,212.16.
2.	Estimates are being prepared.
3.	During the year 1953.


Mr. Carroll:: 1.	Have negotiations been carried on between the federal government and the Nova Scotia provincial government for the construction of a bridge or causeway across Canso strait?
2.	If so, what is the present status of the project?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Board of engineers has been reconvened.



NAVAL SERVICE


Mr. Smith (Queens-Shelburne):: 1.	Since 1949, how many of each class of naval ships have been referred to the Canadian maritime commission for yard allocation in connection with (a) refits; (b) recommissioning; (c) new construction?
2.	In connection with such allocations, what yards in Nova Scotia have been considered, and for what class of ships?
3.	What yards are now engaged in such work?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1. (a) 6 destroyers, 3 frigates, 1 aircraft carrier, 1 Algerine minesweeper, 1 auxiliary vessel, 1 auxiliary tanker, 1 cruiser.
(b) None.
1949	1950 Total
(c) Anti-submarine escort
vessels	
3	4	7Influence type minesweepers	
4	10	14Gate vessels	
1	4	5Arctic patrol vessel...	1-12.	Halifax Shipyards Ltd., Halifax, N.S.; Halifax Shipyards Ltd., Dartmouth, N.S.; Pictou Foundry and Machine Co., Ltd., Pictou, N.S.; Thompson Bros. Machinery Co., Ltd., Liverpool, N.S. All classes listed above.3.	Refits-Yarrows Ltd., Esquimalt, B.C.; Halifax Shipyards Ltd., Halifax, N.S.; Halifax Shipyards Ltd., Dartmouth, N.S.; Saint John Drydock Co. Ltd., Saint John, N.B.
New Construction-Yarrows Ltd., Esquimalt, B.C.; Victoria Machinery Depot Co., Ltd., Victoria, B.C.; Burrard Drydock Co., Ltd., North Vancouver, B.C.; Port Arthur Shipbuilding Co., Ltd., Port Arthur, Ont.; Canadian Shipbuilding & Engineering Ltd., Kingston, Ont.; Canadian Vickers Ltd., Montreal, Que.; Marine Industries Ltd., Sorel, Que.; Davie Shipbuilding & Repairing Co., Ltd., Lauzon, Que.; Geo. T. Davie & Son Ltd., Lauzon, Que.; Halifax Shipyards Ltd., Halifax, N.S.; Pictou Foundry and Machine Co., Ltd., Pictou, N.S.; Saint John Drydock Co., Ltd., Saint John, N.B.

Questions



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	Have any ships been ordered for construction by Halifax Shipyards Limited?
2.	If so (a) what type of ships; (b) on what dates were orders placed; (c) what period of time will be required for construction?
3.	Will steel be available?
4.	Has work been started on these ships?
5.	If not, when will construction begin?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Anti-submarine escort vessels; (b) May, 1950, and November, 1950; (c) not known.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	Answered by No. 4.



DEPARTMENTS OF FINANCE AND NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Pouliot:: Who were, in chronological order (a) the acting (b) the joint (c) the associate ministers of justice for each separate period of office from October, 1935, until December 9, 1941, and what was the length of time of each such period of office?


Jean-François Pouliot: Who were, in chronological order (a) the joint (b) the associate (c) the acting ministers of finance for each separate period of office since January 1, 1930, and what was the length of time of each such period of office?


Jean-François Pouliot: Who were, in chronological order (a) the joint (b) the associate (c) the acting ministers of finance for each separate period of office since October 23, 1935, and what was the length of time of each such period of office?


Jean-François Pouliot: What was the difference between the functions of (a) the joint (b) the acting (c) the associate ministers of national defence, during world war II?


Mr. St. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker, I should
like to deal with these four questions orally and then file more complete details.
There have never been any joint ministers in the departments in the periods referred to in the questions. The only department which had an associate minister was the Department of National Defence, and his functions are a matter of public record, as they appear in the Department of National Defence Act of 1940.
Acting ministers are appointed from time to time to act in the absence of the ministers. The names and duration of periods of office of the acting ministers of justice and finance for the dates referred to are as follows: Department of Justice-April 3, 1936, Hon P J A Cardin; November 11, 1941, Hon. A. L. Macdonald; November 26, 1941, Hon. J. E. Michaud.
Department of Finance-September 23, 1930, Hon. E. B. Ryckman; November 12, 1931, Hon. E. N. 
Rhodes; June 6, 1933, Right Hon. Sir George H. Perley; June 30, 1936, Hon. T. A. Crerar; April 19, 1937, Hon. J. L. Ilsley; August 8, 1940, Hon. J. L. Ralston; April 1, 1942, Hon. Colin Gibson in the absence of Hon. J. L. Ralston; September 10, 1942, Hon. Colin Gibson in the absence of Hon. J. L. Ralston; August 4, 1943, Hon. Colin Gibson in the absence of Hon. J. L. Ralston; December 27, 1944, Hon. L. S. St. Laurent; May 10, 1945, Hon. D. C. Abbott in the absence of Hon. L. S. St. Laurent; July 12, 1946, Hon D. C. Abbott; September 4, 1946, Hon. Colin Gibson in the absence of Hon. D. C. Abbott; December 13, 1946, Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent; July 6, 1949, Right Hon. C. D. Howe; August 31, 1949, Hon. Stuart S. Garson; July 19, 1950, Hon. J. J. McCann in the absence of Hon. Stuart S. Garson.
Generally speaking, an acting minister holds that appointment until it is terminated by the government, usually through the naming of another minister to so act, or by his leaving the government.
However, the acting minister's term may be temporarily interrupted from time to time where, during his absences from Ottawa, the government deem it advisable to appoint another minister to so act in his place on a pro tem basis.



DEFENCE PURCHASING BOARD

Mr. Pouliot:: 1.	What was the date of the royal assent to the national defence purchasing board act?
2. When was the personnel of that board appointed, and who were they?


Mr. St. Laurent:: 1. The date of the royal assent to the Defence Purchases, Profits Control, and Financing Act, 1939, was June 3, 1939.
2.	Robert C. Vaughan, Esq., Montreal, chairman-appointed July 14, 1939; Clifton W. Sherman, Esq., Hamilton-appointed July 14, 1939; Charles E. Gravel, Esq., Montreal- appointed July 14, 1939; Howard B. Chase, Esq., Montreal-appointed July 14, 1939.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


CUSTOMS AND IMMIGRATION


Mr. Murphy:: 1.	Are there any entry ports in Canada where it is the practice to have only one officer interview entrants as to customs and immigration details?
2.	If so, at what ports, and when was this practice adopted in each case?



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. MacKenzie:: 1.	How many radio sets were in operation in Canada during the year 1949-50?
2.	How many radio licences were issued during this period?
3.	What was the total income from radio licences for 1949-50?
4.	How many convictions were made for failure to secure licences in this period?
5.	What was the total cost of collecting radio licence fees for the year 1949-50?

6.	What was the total revenue collected from all operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the year 1949-50?
7.	Was there a deficit in the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the year 1949-50? If so, in what amount?



OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATION


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	Has the Department of Transport been advised as to action by the commonwealth telecommunications board to restore the submarine cable between Halifax, Nova Scotia, Harbour Grace, Newfoundland and Cornwall, England?
2.	If so (a) when will work commence; (b) what is the estimated cost; (c) who will share the cost; (d) what proportion will be borne by Canada?
3.	Will the restoration of cable mean the reestablishment of cable offices and staffs in Halifax, Nova Scotia?



ATOMIC ENERGY


Mr. Courtemanche:: 1.	Has any engineering firm been retained to prepare plans for a new reactor at Chalk River?
2.	If so, what firm?
3.	Upon what basis are fees payable to this firm?
4.	Will this firm also supervise construction?
5.	If so, on what basis?



PAYMENT OF $65 MILLION UNDER U.K. WHEAT AGREEMENT  COST TO TAXPAYERS

Mr. Goode:: 1.	What was the total income earned by the farmers of (a) Alberta; (b) Saskatchewan; (c) Manitoba, in each of the years 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950?
2.	How many motor cars and trucks were purchased in each of these provinces during each of the above-mentioned years?
3.	What was the dollar value of farm implements sold in (a) Alberta; (b) Saskatchewan; (c) Manitoba, in each of the years 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950?
4.	What is the estimated number of farmers actually owning or renting farm property in (a) Alberta; (b) Saskatchewan; (c) Manitoba, in 1950?
5.	What is the estimated share of cost to the individual taxpayer in Canada in the payment of $65 million to the farmers of the three western provinces?



DOMINION BUREAU OF STATISTICS


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	How many persons were employed directly or indirectly by the dominion bureau of statistics in each of the years 1929, 1939, 1949, and 1951 to date?
2.	What was the total cost for (a) wages and salaries; (b) rent and capital cost, if any, for office space; (c) all other expenses during each of these same years?



CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIRS OF WHARVES IN NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. Higgins:: 1. What construction and repair work on wharves, slipways and breakwaters, in the province of New-
Orders for Returns
foundland, has been done during the period from
April 1, 1949, to date?
2.	At what locations was such work done, and what was the cost of each operation?
3.	At what points will such construction and repair work be done during the present year?



AIRPORTS IN MARITIME PROVINCES

Mr. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth):: 1.	What airports in (a) Nova Scotia; (b) Prince Edward Island; (c) New Brunswick; (d) Newfoundland, were used by Department of National Defence for training purposes and for operations during world war II?
2.	Which of the above airports are now in active use (a) by the Department of National Defence; (b) by the Department of Transport, for commercial purposes?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Cold well:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda, or other documents between any minister, department, official, or the government of Canada and any minister, department, official or His Majesty's government of the United Kingdom, relating to the final settlement of the four-year agreement, 1946, for the sale and purchase of Canadian wheat, including correspondence, and other documents relating to the price agreed to be paid during the last two years of the agreement.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Caldwell) knows that the government of the United Kingdom has been approached to see whether they have any objection to the publication of documents related to the discussions referred to in this motion. Of course hon. members realize that it is not usual to publish documents connected with negotiations between governments, but only to publish the agreed conclusions. Nevertheless we have asked the views of the United Kingdom government about this motion.
As a controversy has arisen in debate respecting the position taken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) at London in May of 1950, and by the government since that time, I feel I should make the position clear at once.
The United Kingdom authorities took the position in May of 1950 "that all obligations under the 'have regard to' clause might be considered to have been taken care of." The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that this was a matter which could only be settled by the Canadian cabinet on his return to Ottawa. After discussion with his colleagues, the Minister of Trade and Commerce advised the chancellor of the exchequer of the United Kingdom that the Canadian government was in accord with the conclusions in the agreed record of the meeting held with the United Kingdom authorities while he was in London. That is one of

Motions for Papers
the documents for which their consent to table has been requested. In other words, the Canadian government accepted as the position of the United Kingdom that they had discharged their obligations under the agreement.
Subsequent representations to the United Kingdom government were as I stated in the House of Commons on March 8 in reply to a question by the hon, member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), and that reply is at page 1023 of Hansard of 8th of March.	>


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion dropped?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: No; it stands. We have not yet received the reply from the United Kingdom.


Mr, Coldwell:: The reply has not been received, so the motion stands?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.



FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION

Mr. Knight:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government of Manitoba or any minister or department thereof and the federal government or any minister or department thereof, in reference to the question of federal aid to education, dated at any time since January 1, 1947.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: This is subject to the usual reservation in connection with getting the consent of the government of Manitoba.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, subject to the usual reservation regarding provincial consent.



POSTAL SERVICE


Mrs. Fairclough:: For a copy of all schedules of postal rates issued from year to year from 1914, to date, also for a statement showing profit or loss yearly on the handling of second-class mail since and including the year 1939.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): May I give an answer to a question submitted on March 6 by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones)? The question was:
Did the government of British Columbia make representations in regard to the fruit growers, and if so, did they receive that answer?
That was in reference to the answer that had been given just before the hon. member had put his question. I told him I would have to look at the correspondence; that I knew members of the British Columbia legislature were concerned but I did not want to

make a positive statement about the government of British Columbia without looking at the correspondence. I am now given the following answer.
The government of British Columbia did make representations in regard to the fruit growers who suffered losses in the winter of 1949-50. We considered the matter and came to the conclusion that as the loss was not beyond the capacity of the provincial government to handle, and as there was no precedent for the provision of federal assistance in similar cases, assistance could not be provided by the federal government for the rehabilitation of damaged orchards; and the government of British Columbia was so informed.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide elected representation in the territorial government for the population of the northwest territories, and to give the governor in council power to appoint judicial officers for the said territories.
He said: Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: May I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, based upon press reports appearing today with respect to the arrest of Canadian citizens and other repressive treatment which seems to have been accorded citizens of this country in Red China? Can the minister tell us whether he has any late reports dealing with the subject of Canadian citizens still in Red China, and whether it is possible for Canadian citizens to leave that country freely for Canada if they so desire?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: We have had information in my department through the United Kingdom authorities in Peking, which information has been transmitted to us through London,

and also information from other sources, that certain Canadians have been detained by the government in Peking. We have asked the United Kingdom authorities in China to look into the cases that have been brought to our attention and to do everything they can to afford those Canadians protection. Since we ourselves have no diplomatic representation in China, on this occasion we are dependent upon the good offices of-the United Kingdom diplomatic service; and, as always, they are only too anxious to help, as I hope we would help if the circumstances were reversed.
On the general question of the position of Canadians in China, I would not like to say anything at this moment without more consideration; but I can tell the hon. member for Peel that Canadians are leaving China at the present time. Delays have been put in their way but of those who wish to return to Canada some are getting out of China. I may be able to give him more particulars on that aspect of the matter shortly.



QUESTION AS TO RECENT IMPORTATIONS AND BASIS OF DISTRIBUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Since butter has increased in price by 17 cents a pound in the last two weeks and is now selling for 80 cents a pound in western Canada, will the Minister of Agriculture say how much butter has been imported into Canada recently, and by whom; what is the basis of the distribution of government stocks of butter, and what is the present situation with respect to butter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this question is one that should be placed on the order paper. The latter part of the question might be permitted now, but the portion having to do with statistical information should be on the order paper.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I would prefer to have the whole question stand as notice, and the question can be answered tomorrow.


James Arthur Ross: I have given the minister notice, and his suggestion is quite satisfactory.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: May I ask the Minister of Transport if he can do anything to expedite the production of the papers covered by a motion adopted on February 26, which appears at page 667 of Hansard? Can he do anything to hurry these papers along before the recess?
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport): I shall be glad to look into the resolution to which my hon. friend refers. What was the motion about? I do not have it in mind at the moment.


Clarence Gillis: I asked for the production of any correspondence there might be between the federal government and the government of Nova Scotia in the matter of the Canso bridge.


Mr. Chevrier:: I remember it now. I do not think the correspondence can be tabled until the permission of the provincial government has been obtained. That permission has been requested, and as soon as it is forthcoming the papers will be tabled.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (Sf. John's West):: In
view of the urgent necessity of co-operative organization among the fishermen of Newfoundland, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether any steps have been taken recently to bring about this result.


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: At the moment I cannot recall any instance in which we have given different treatment to the co-operatives from that accorded to other _ agencies, but I shall make a further examination and see what has been done.



THE BUDGET

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO PROBABLE DATE OF PRESENTATION On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Is the
Minister of Finance yet in a position to tell us whether he will be able to bring down the budget before the Easter recess?


Hon. Douglas Abboll (Minister of Finance):: Yes, I am. I shall not be able to bring it down before Easter.



POSTAL SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
REDUCTION IN URBAN MAIL DELIVERIES__


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworihy (York South):: should like to direct two questions to the Postmaster General. Can the minister tell us what adjustments, if any, are being made in the mail delivery service in Toronto as a result of the work of his investigators there last week? Second, is the department considering paying the postmen overtime rates

Foreign Exchange Control Act for the extra hours of work rendered necessary by the change from two deliveries to one delivery a day?


Hon. Edouard Rinfrei (Postmaster General):: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of these two questions. As to the first, a check is being made of all these walks, but it has not been completed. We expect the first week's check to be back tomorrow or the day after, and any necessary adjustments will be made. As to the second question, no consideration is being given at the present time to the matter the hon. gentleman has mentioned.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL ACT


[Stage Direction]
in 1953
Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to provide for the continuance in force of the Foreign Exchange Control Act until sixty days after the commencement of the first session of parliament commencing in the year 1953.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this resolution seeks leave to introduce a bill providing for the extension of the Foreign Exchange Control Act for a further two-year period. The original measure, enacted by parliament in 1947, provided that the act should lapse sixty days after the commencement of the first session of parliament in 1949. On March 17, 1949, I introduced a resolution, which was subsequently embodied in legislation approved by parliament, providing for the continuance in force of the act until sixty days after the commencement of the first session of parliament in 1951. The effect of the present bill, when it is enacted, will be to postpone the termination date for a period expiring sixty days after the commencement of the first session of parliament in 1953.
When I introduced a similar resolution two years ago, I described the Foreign Exchange Control Act as a measure of national defence. The developments of the past two years, and particularly of the past six months, have, I think, illustrated the correctness of this description, as well, of course, as the continued need for the measure itself. It is because the government believes that this measure of national defence continues to be necessary that we are asking the house to agree to retain it for another two years. We all wish that the state of the world were such that there were no longer any need to retain the powers provided in this act. It is no affection for controls as

such which moves us to seek a prolongation. On the contrary, as I shall show the house in some detail, we have progressively reduced the extent of the control which is in fact exercised under the act, and we hope to continue in this direction as long as we are able. When, however, we are confronted with the question, as we are at this time, whether we are prepared to abandon the machinery itself by allowing the act to expire, then we feel that only one answer is possible.
There is no need for me, after the discussion which has already taken place in the house since the commencement of this session, to elaborate on the unsettled state of the world. Nor is there, I believe, any need to introduce any elaborate arguments to establish that one aspect, and a very important one, of our economic preparedness must be the control over our foreign exchange resources. I am not able to relate in detail to the house, because I do not know, what foreign exchange pressures we may be under as we and our allies step up the pace of our military preparedness. But I feel that members on all sides of the house will agree that we shall be better able to cope with the pressures that do arise if we retain this instrument of control than if we abandon it.
Even without the pressures of war and near war, the foreign exchange situation of Canada tends to be an extremely variable one. This is illustrated in the wide swings to which our foreign exchange reserves have been subjected since the end of the war. In this connection may I express my personal regret that the 1950 report of the foreign exchange control board, which will include the detailed relevant statistics for the last calendar year, is not yet available. I had hoped that it would be ready in time for this debate, but I am now advised that it will be another three or four weeks before some of the figures can toe finalized and the report printed and tabled. Some of the figures which I shall use in this statement therefore will necessarily be very preliminary and tentative. However, hon. members are already aware from published reports that our official reserves in gold and U.S. dollars, which amounted to approximately $1,500 million at the end of 1945, fell during 1946 by approximately $250 million and in 1947 by nearly $750 million. In 1948, on the other hand, they rose by nearly $500 million, in 1949 by $120 million and in 1950 by $625 million. These are very formidable changes from year to year and they illustrate better than words the size of the external pressures to which our economy is subject. These

pressures arise partly as a result of the importance of external transactions in our economy-


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Will the
minister permit a question?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Could the
minister indicate, up to whatever date it is possible, what change has taken place since the tenth of September last?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. I believe the last
quarterly figures have been published. Our reserves at the end of September-I am speaking from memory now-were approximately $1,800 million U.S. dollars, and they were about the same at the end of the year. Those figures were available early in January.
As I was saying, these pressures arise partly as a result of the importance of external transactions in our economy, partly as a result of the nature of our trading relationships with the two economic areas of major importance to us, the United States and the sterling area; partly as a result of our proximity to the United States and the large volume of U.S. capital investment in Canada. Whatever the causes may be, it is the case that throughout the post-war period our foreign exchange situation has shown itself to be capable of very rapid change from year to year. The existence of exchange control has been helpful in coping with these changes and in moderating their effects, though it cannot, of course, be claimed that this control by itself provides any guarantee of stability. It is essentially a defensive instrument.
It may be of value to the house if I review now the highlights of our foreign exchange experience during the past two years,-that is, since the act was last extended.
I must begin by recalling the foreign exchange difficulties which arose in 1947 and which resulted in the loss, by the end of that year, of nearly two-thirds of the reserves with which we emerged from the war. In tackling these difficulties we were obliged temporarily to do a number of unpleasant and unpopular things, such as restrict imports and ration pleasure travel involving U.S. dollar outlays. We substantially reduced the rate of our own foreign lending and we borrowed some capital in the United States. However, we placed the greatest emphasis on a positive approach. We sought to achieve a closer approach to equilibrium in our bilateral balance of payments with the United States and the sterling area by developing our exports to the United States and by encouraging imports into Canada from the United Kingdom and other parts of the sterling area.
12, 1951
Foreign Exchange Control Act
This program, which was supported by the general fiscal and economic policies of the government, was successful in improving our balance of payments and stemming the loss of reserves. In the course of 1948, as I have noted, we added nearly $500 million to our official holdings, of which $150 million was borrowed. Our over-all balance of payments in that year showed a current account surplus of over $450 million; our current account deficit with the United States alone was reduced from over $1,100 million to less than $400 million.
In 1949 we continued to add to our reserves, though at the more moderate rate of $120 million. Our over-all current account surplus was reduced to $180 million, the change as compared with the previous year occurring mainly in our transactions with the United States, and reflecting mainly increased imports into Canada and increased travel expenditures and dividend payments involving U.S. dollar outlays.
The most significant development in the foreign exchange field in 1949 was of course the change in the international exchange rate structure which was inaugurated by the thirty per cent devaluation of sterling in September of that year. This action by the United Kingdom was followed by similar action by all other sterling area countries with the exception of Pakistan; and most western European countries immediately depreciated their exchange rate to the same or a lesser degree. As a result of these changes a new and very drastic exchange rate structure emerged and a completely new situation was created for the Canadian dollar. In appraising the new situation the government came to the conclusion that the Canadian interest would best be served by reducing the value of the Canadian dollar in terms of U.S. dollars by approximately nine per cent. We felt, in the face of the very large depreciation in the value of sterling and most other currencies, that some change must be made in the value of the Canadian dollar. Our competitive position at home and abroad was strong, but we did not feel that Canadian producers should be subjected to the full strain of a thirty per cent reduction in the exchange value of the currencies of some of our principal competitors in the home and foreign markets. On the other hand, the devaluation of sterling and other currencies represented, in part, an effort on the part of the countries concerned to use the price system to redress the great unbalance that still persisted in their trade with the dollar countries. This effort would have been nullified, so far as Canada was concerned, had we not allowed some appreciation of the Canadian dollar in relation to these currencies. Out of
1138	HOUSE OF
Foreign Exchange Control Act these conflicting considerations we reached the decision of September 1949 to reduce the exchange value of the Canadian dollar by about nine per cent, which involved an appreciation of our currency in relation to sterling of approximately twenty-five per cent.
In the latter part of 1949, and in the course of 1950, important new factors emerged affecting in an important way our foreign exchange position. One of these was a very sharp drop in our exports to the United Kingdom and other sterling area countries. Members of the house will recall that at the commonwealth ministers of finance meeting which took place in London in July, 1949, to consider the problem raised by the very sharp decline in the sterling area's gold and dollar reserves, the sterling area countries agreed to reduce their dollar drawings on the sterling area dollar pool in respect of dollar imports by an amount equivalent to twenty-five per cent of 1948 imports. It is, of course, impossible to say to what extent the decline in sterling area purchases in Canada which occurred in 1950 was due to the tightening of import restrictions consequent upon this decision, to what extent it was due to normal economic forces set in train by the exchange devaluations of September 1949, and to what extent it was due to the continued recovery of production in the non-dollar world and consequent availability of supplies on economic terms for payment other than in dollars. Whatever may have been the factors operating, our exports to the United Kingdom fell from $710 million in 1949 to $470 million in 1950, and our exports to the rest of the sterling area from $300 million in 1949 to $200 million in 1950-an aggregate decline of over $300 million, or thirty per cent, in our exports to the sterling area in one year. Before the war, nearly half our exports went to the sterling area; by 1949 this had been reduced to a third; and in 1950 the proportion going there was substantially less than one quarter.
On the other hand, in recent years, the total value of our imports from these countries has increased very considerably, percentagewise, though even now the sterling area supplies us with only slightly more than twenty per cent of our total imports compared with nearly thirty per cent before the war. The United Kingdom, which had already succeeded in increasing its exports to Canada from less than $150 million in 1946 to $300 million in 1949, increased them still further to just over $400 million in 1950. Other sterling area countries increased their exports to us from $190 million in 1949 to $240 million in 1950. This increase in imports from the sterling area, helping as it has done to redress the


balance of payments between this part of the world and Canada, has been a most welcome development, and I should like to express the satisfaction of the government at the success which has attended British efforts in this direction. The development of exports to Canada is the course of action which I strongly urged on my colleagues, the ministers of finance of the sterling area countries, at the commonwealth gathering of ministers of finance in July 1949, to which I referred a moment ago. We in Canada believe-and I am sure that all members of the house will agree-that it is in the interests of all concerned that any necessary correction of the unbalance in accounts between Canada and the sterling area should be achieved through an expansion in our imports rather than through a contraction in our exports.
Primarily as a result of the developments I have mentioned affecting our import and export trade with the sterling area, our current account surplus with this part of the world, which was $578 million in 1949, virtually disappeared in 1950 according to the preliminary estimates. After taking all capital items-including our extensions of credit- into consideration, the sterling area made net payments, mainly in U.S. dollars, of nearly $500 million to Canada in 1949. In 1950, on the other hand, the balance has so far been redressed that there was in the year apparently only a very small net transfer of gold and U.S. dollars between Canada and the countries of the sterling area.
The improvement in the sterling area's balance of payments with Canada is, of course, only one aspect of the very remarkable and welcomed improvement which has occurred in the over-all dollar position of that area since the devaluation of sterling. This improvement is reflected in the gold and dollar reserves of the United Kingdom which have risen from $1,425 million at the end of September 1949-and an even lower figure immediately before devaluation-to $3,300 million at the end of 1950. Some part of this increase is of course attributable to ECA and other external assistance, but during the past year the sterling area as a whole has been earning a substantial surplus in its dollar transactions.
In the light of this improved position, it is the earnest hope of the Canadian government that the governments of the United Kingdom and other sterling area countries will give earnest consideration to the possibility of relaxing the present severe import restrictions, particularly those of a discriminatory character, on imports from Canada. We recognize of course that there are a number of uncertainties and unfavourable elements in

the British situation which justify a certain degree of caution. The dollar surplus, particularly that which has occurred since Korea, has been achieved in part by a very sharp increase in the prices of the primary products exported from sterling area countries other than the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has had to give up a much larger volume of exports to obtain the same volume of imports from other sterling area countries, and this has absorbed a large part of the increase in output of the United Kingdom during the past year. Even so, the balances held in London by other sterling area countries-the counterpart, in some measure, of their surplus dollar earnings transferred to the United Kingdom-have risen very substantially, and they constitute a claim on British productive capacity. Moreover, the rearmament effort of the United Kingdom will absorb an increasing share of British resources, and particularly perhaps in those fields in which the dollar export drive has been most successful.
For these reasons we can appreciate why the British chancellor of the exchequer has pointed to the necessity of some degree of caution in appraising the outlook for the dollar position of the United Kingdom. At the same time we feel justified, for our part, in expressing the strong hope that the caution will not be excessive. Some of the sterling area countries have already taken steps to reduce their restrictions on dollar imports, and it is to be hoped that others, including the United Kingdom, will take advantage of their present opportunities to do likewise. In the present circumstances we urge this course not so much because of any desire to widen the markets for Canadian products-which, with very few exceptions, are finding a ready enough sale at the present time-but rather on account of our desire to see competitive conditions re-established over as wide an area of trade as possible and concrete evidence given of the determination of all our trading partners to move as rapidly as they can towards the achievement of those principles of non-discrimination and liberalism which are the declared policy of the government in international trade.
1 revert now to the main developments in our foreign exchange position during the past two years. The first, as I have pointed out, has been the virtual elimination of the surplus in our balance of payments with the sterling area. Our exports to western European countries have also been substantially reduced-by about one-third- while our imports have increased somewhat, though they remain disappointingly small. In consequence our current account surplus
Foreign Exchange Control Act with that part of the world is substantially less than it was a few years ago.
In some ways the most striking development in our exchange position during the past few years has been the great expansion in our exports to the United States. Those rose from $1,000 million in 1947 to $1,500 million in 1949 and to over $2,000 million in 1950. The high level of economic activity prevailing in the United States, combined with the enterprise of Canadians in producing the right goods at the right prices and taking advantage of their opportunities and seeking out new markets, plus the more favourable conditions of entry for certain important products arranged in tariff negotiations with the United States-these were among the factors responsible for this remarkable increase in our exports to the United States. It had been our hope, when we got into exchange difficulties in 1947, that once the emergency, which required us to impose restrictive measures on imports and travel, had been overcome, we would be able to achieve the necessary correction in our position through an expansion of exports. These hopes have, as the house is aware, been realized, and, in line with the policy announced at the time the restrictions were first imposed, they have been progressively reduced as our exchange position has improved. At the beginning of this year the last of the import restrictions imposed' under the Emergency Exchange Conservation Act was eliminated, and that act itself has in consequence lapsed. So far as travel is concerned, we are again in the happy position where Canadians can obtain U.S. funds to cover all travel requirements without being subject to any ration.	.
The current account deficit in our transactions with the United States was reduced from the very large figure of $1,100 million in 1947 to an amount of the order of $400 million in 1950. It will be apparent from what I have said that this improvement is mainly due to the increase in our exports; the value of our imports was not substantially different, though rising rather rapidly in the latter months of 1950. Increased gold production also played its part in reducing our current deficit with the United States. On the other hand, interest and dividend payments have risen very markedly in recent years.
The reduction in the current account deficit with the United States in recent years, though very substantial, has fallen short of the reduction in our surplus with the sterling area and other countries. In consequence, our over-all current account surplus, which reached the very high figure of $450 million in 1948, was reduced to $180 million in 1949 and gave way to a deficit of the order of $300 million in 1950.

Foreign Exchange Control Act
The developments in our current account position ill 1950, though important, were overshadowed by those relating to capital transactions. In each year since the end of the war, quite substantial sums of capital have come to this country from abroad, particularly from the United States, for direct investment in Canadian industry and to participate in the development of our natural resources. The consequence and the counterpart of this capital inflow has, of course, been a deepening of our economic structure and a growth in our output and our economic capacity which enables us to assume the additional foreign exchange charges resulting from the capital inflow. In the course of 1950, and particularly after the outbreak of hostilities in Korea, a massive inflow of capital of quite a different type developed. This consisted in the purchase by United States investors of marketable Canadian securities, particularly government of Canada obligations. The scale of the capital inflow is reflected in the increase of nearly $600 million in our reserves of gold and U.S. dollars which occurred between June 30 and September 30.
The ardent desire on the part of United States investors to increase their holdings of Canadian securities, and particularly government of Canada securities, was of course flattering to Canada. However, like most flattery, it had its serious drawbacks. In the first place, the bulk of the capital inflow was not for the purpose of helping directly in the development of our economic resources. It was based rather on a favourable general attitude towards our economic future, and in particular on an anticipation that the Canadian exchange rate would be resorted to parity with the United States dollar. In consequence this capital had elements of volatility and speculativeness which is not associated with the direct investment of capital. Moreover, it was an expensive proceeding involving the incurring of additional foreign indebtedness which was not balanced by a corresponding increase in our economic capacity but merely by an increase in our liquid balances of gold and U.S. dollars. Furthermore the very large inflows of exchange inevitably increased the liquid resources available for investment in Canada, and the direct and indirect demand for securities resulting from the capital inflow tended to create very easy money conditions at a time when the growing pressures on our material resources made it desirable that our monetary and credit, as well as our fiscal policies, should be of an anti-inflationary character.
In the statement which I made on September 30, I outlined in some detail the


reasons why the government found it impossible to go on buying all the funds being offered by United States investors at a premium of ten per cent, and the reasons why we felt it unwise, in the circumstances prevailing, to fix a new exchange rate for the Canadian dollar at parity with the United States dollar or any other definite level. I do not think it necessary to go over that ground again. After consulting with the international monetary fund, the government announced its decision to suspend official quotations for the Canadian dollar and allow the exchange rate to be determined by the forces of supply and demand in the market.
The general structure of exchange control has, of course, been retained under the new conditions, although the process' of relaxation which has been in progress during the past couple of years has been accelerated since last October. In the public announcement I made on September 30 last I explained the main changes we were making consequential on the decision to free the exchange rate- the abolition of the so-called unofficial market for Canadian dollars, the withdrawal of restrictions on the types of forward exchange contracts residents may enter into with Canadian banks, and the replacement of the previous requirement that residents coming into possession of foreign exchange must sell it forthwith by one authorizing them to merely declare it forthwith and choose their own time for selling it within a three months' period.
Another change recently made makes it possible for Canadians selling services in the U.S. dollar area to accept Canadian as well as U.S. funds in payment. A further change eases the conditions under which currently earned profits may be remitted to the United States without awaiting the completion of a fiscal year. Canadians going to take up residence in the U.S. dollar area have had their annual allotment of transferable funds increased from a maximum of $12,500 to one of $25,000, and after a three-year period are now permitted to deal with any remainder of their Canadian assets in the same way as other non-residents.
I have already referred to the withdrawal in October of the previous restrictions on pleasure travel in the United States dollar area. The exemption from any form H permit requirement, previously $25 of which $10 could be in United States funds, was increased in October to $100 of which $50 could be in United States funds. We have this month further amended this provision so that the entire $100 can be in United States dollars. At the same time the amount of United

States currency which residents are authorized to hold has been progressively raised to the present level of $100, and the general exemption from the use of permit has also been increased to $100. As a consequence of these changes a great many Canadians having occasion to make relatively small remittances in United States funds or to take relatively short trips to the United States are able to do so without any formalities resulting from the existence of foreign exchange control.
Last week the regulations governing securities transactions were broadened and simplified by removing the distinction between Canadian government domestic securities and corporation securities in connection with exchanges of securities in Canada by nonresidents and in the United States by residents.
In fact, when one considers the very substantial relaxations in foreign exchange policies and procedures regarding United States dollar transactions effected during the past couple of years, and when one bears in mind the fact that virtually no restrictions have at any time been placed on exchange transactions with the sterling area, one feels entitled to regard the exchange control as substantially a stand-by instrument. At the present time we have no restrictions on current account transactions, and the board approves the great majority of the applications it receives involving capital payment. It is the hope and expectation of the government that it will be possible to continue these liberal arrangements; and our purpose is to continue along this path of relaxation and simplification. But, as I have already intimated to the house, we believe that there are too many uncertainties in the present world situation to warrant the abandonment of this defensive instrument. We have had too much experience of the rapidity with which our situation, and, what may be equally important, attitudes towards our situation can change to warrant us in projecting the present favourable position into the difficult years that lie immediately ahead.
We cannot take the risk of leaving ourselves without an instrument of control which we can again bring into use if external factors threaten to add seriously to the difficulties which we shall have in any case to face.
It is for these reasons that the government asks the house to approve this measure extending the Foreign Exchange Control Act for a further two-year period. At the end of that time parliament will again have an opportunity of deciding whether in the
Foreign Exchange Control Act circumstances then prevailing, the public interest still requires the continuance of exchange control.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations on the interesting statement we have heard; it contained a great many figures of trade and other matters, but these of course I will not attempt to go into in detail at this time.
I was struck by one or two remarks the minister made, particularly toward the end of his statement. He spoke of the board in the future as being substantially something in the nature of a stand-by organization. On the other hand, as I understand it, he asks that it be continued with all the powers, far-reaching as they are, which at present exist.
I was sorry the minister had not made clearer-although one might hardly have expected him to do so-the reason for the great change of heart that took place last year. That is very important, when one considers the conclusion to which the minister finally came, one which had been pressed upon him for many months previously. I shall read from his statement of last September, when he said:
It has been decided not to establish any new fixed parity for the Canadian dollar at this time, nor to prescribe any new official fixed rates on exchange.
Then he added this, which I greatly welcomed, and which I think everyone welcomed:
Instead rates of exchange will be determined by conditions of supply and demand for foreign currencies in Canada.
Some of us had been trying to persuade the minister for many months that the time had come to take that action, and of course we were glad when it finally came. I should like just to encourage the minister-and I am sure even ministers like to have encouragement-by quoting to him words which I am sure will be familiar to him:
Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repen-teth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
I hope the minister will take that quotation in the spirit in which it is given.


An hon. Member:: But he is not a sinner.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to review briefly the course of the measure we are now asked to renew, as I understand it, without change. We remember this, that in 1946-the minister said 1947, but I think it was a slip on his part-we in this party, while we agreed that some measure of control was then necessary, asked for less rigidity. We

Foreign Exchange Control Act asked that there should be some measure of flexibility introduced into the act. However, that was not considered possible.
I wish to say a word or two about the results which have ensued. As we look back -and this has never been admitted by the government; the minister was far from admitting it today-I think it is perfectly clear that, for a very long time past-I am not saying as far back as the end of the war, because there were peculiar circumstances at that time-there just has not been enough wisdom in the wisest and best experts in finance in the world to determine what is a proper rate of exchange. I do not blame them for not being able to determine what is a proper rate. What I do blame them for is trying to determine a rate at all.
Let me recall to the minds of hon. members what happened in 1947, when it was perfectly clear that the 1946 restoration of the dollar to parity had been an overvaluation. At that time we will all remember-and the minister told us-that we lost altogether about a billion in American exchange, so that in 1947 we had to have these measures. I have referred to them as legislation by radio, but the minister has always disagreed with that, so we will just leave it as a disagreement. That was the time when he became associated with the word "austerity," because a great many measures had to be introduced then, by way of control, which perhaps at that time did not make the minister's name popular at every fireside.
Then we come on to 1949-and I go quickly -when, under the influence of the British devaluation, we ourselves had to devalue. I wish to emphasize what happened from that time on, because I think it is both important and interesting. I should like to quote briefly what I said in the house in 1950. These were my words:
We have not advocated any sudden or violent step. We have not advocated a disregard of the fact that we have obligations under the Bretton Woods agreement. But what we have advocated is an approach to realism. Incidentally we believe-as I am sure the minister does also-that the course of events has put us in a strong position; our dollar is in a strong position.
The steps which preceded the action taken by the minister were rather interesting; because we find that in June the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who is always very helpful, said, as reported at page 3185 of Hansard for June 5, 1950:
It is true at the moment Canadian funds are at a ten per cent discount from United States funds, but that may well be a temporary situation. The historic position of the Canadian dollar is at par with the United States dollar. How long the discount situation will continue, I do not know.

Later in the debate the Minister of Finance was asked if the Minister of Trade and Commerce was speaking for him, and his reply was that he was speaking for himself.
Then we come to September 2, 1950, when the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) asked the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) this question:
In view of the statements in the press of Canada today, and questions being raised in both London and New York, and in order to clarify the exchange position and prevent the utmost confusion, can the Prime Minister indicate whether or not the government has any intention of altering the official exchange rate of the Canadian dollar in terms of United States dollars?
To that question the Prime Minister answered:
No consideration has been given to the matter referred to in the hon. member's question.
Then we remember the situation the Minister of Finance has already described-how there was an influx of American investment in September last. It is customary to refer to that as hot money, as if in some way that explained what happened. Actually it was an influx caused partly, of course, by speculation, in the belief that our dollar was too low, and partly by ordinary investment. At any rate the pressure became too great, and we know that on September 30 the minister changed the view which had been expressed so long by the government, and told us the dollar would be allowed to find its own level. It was difficult for the minister to do that, because it had been only a little more than a year before that the Prime Minister was reported to have said at Timmins, on May 26-and this appears in the Ottawa Citizen of May 27:
Mr. Drew's argument-
That is, his argument with regard to our position on the dollar.
-is a typical Tory proposal to benefit the few at the expense of the many.
Of course that was during an election campaign, and in such times we must not hold people too closely to everything they say. But just how it could be argued that the suggestion we made for realism in exchange-that is the word we used-was to benefit the few at the expense of the many, I do not know, and I doubt whether anyone else knows.
As I said, and as the minister has indicated, events became too strong, and the dollar was allowed to And its own level-which should have been done a long time before. What happened immediately was that it appreciated by nearly five cents, which of course meant that those people who had been buying goods in the United States,

such as coal, oil and the like, for a considerable time were injured by the fact that they had been using a dollar which, by the edict of the Department of Finance, was stated to be worth only ninety cents when actually the market showed on September 30, that it was worth about ninety-five cents.
Of course there was another very unfortunate incident. When you persist in wrong actions you sometimes have unexpected conclusions and evils resulting therefrom that you have not looked forward to. Of course the finance department did not expect that as a result of their action long before there would be some $200 million of new money, which the minister has referred to, injected into the Canadian currency, which still further debased our currency, diluted it, and of course just added more fuel to the fire and provided that much more money to send prices up just that much higher. If the dollar had been freed long before, as it should have been, that difficulty would not have arisen.
As I have said already, the minister has finally come to the point where he agrees with us, and he said in September last that the dollar would be allowed to find its own level. Now where do we stand? The minister has said very frankly that he regards the organization as a stand-by organization, but when we get into committee we shall have some questions to ask about the number of people still working for the foreign exchange control board, and about the amount of money which it costs. I think we may find questions in our minds as to whether this is not a fairly expensive stand-by organization.
What is it that remains for this organization to do now that the dollar, as the minister has said, has been set free on what we call current account, that is to say, in ordinary transactions of buying and selling? There is still a measure of control exercised over the movement of capital from Canada to the United States and vice versa. I would agree with the minister to this extent, that in this strange and troubled world it would be taking a good deal of responsibility to say that there must be no organization available in the event of some disaster or unexpected cataclysm which might disturb things.
As a matter of fact, since the dollar was allowed to find its own level the violent oscillations, the jumpings up and down of our holdings of United States exchange, which the minister referred to, have stopped. That is unless in the last month or two there has been a substantial change because, as the minister indicated, from the 30th of September when the change was made until the end of December the amount of United States
12, 1951
Foreign Exchange Control Act exchange remained level. That indicates that the dollar had found its proper level, that there was no unnatural movement of money. As a matter of fact, some have even suggested that there might again be a danger not of our having too little United States money but, with all the inducement there is to invest in our country now, of our even having too much United States money. It has even been suggested that we might need some kind of control available to stop an experience similar to what we had last September.
Of course there is one very obvious answer. Now that the dollar is free to find its own level, just as soon as you have United States money coming in here in any unusual amount it will raise the price of our dollar and it will tend to check itself in the natural, time-honoured and sensible way. Of course the same will be true about Canadian money going into the United States. Nevertheless, if the minister is coming and asking for some skeleton organization, some really stand-by organization, then it seems to me that we ought to be ready at any rate to take a good look at what he asks, but we are still hopeful that before the bill becomes law we shall be able to persuade the minister that no elaborate machinery is necessary.
I would carry the minister's mind back to the autumn of 1939. I think the minister would agree that, so far as permits covering ordinary travelling expenses for people going to the United States are concerned, there is no more need for the machinery we now have. I quite realize that the minister is relaxing it but there is no more need for that machinery than there is for machinery when you travel from Toronto to Montreal. As a matter of fact it almost looks as if, perhaps almost without intending it, the authorities were trying to keep people in the employ of the foreign exchange control board so as to have a full-fledged instrument if the need should arise again.
What I should like to point out to the minister, however, is that if capital controls are needed-and I think he will agree that is the only thing that is needed-those were made effective in September, 1939, with virtually no machinery except that of the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks. It will take a lot of persuasion even on the part of that persuasive man, the minister, to convince me that anything like what I imagine to be the number of staff in the foreign exchange control board is necessary. We will know more about that after we reach the committee stage.
Therefore what I would say is that, subject to what may come out in this debate and to

Foreign Exchange Control Act further investigation of the facts, I think it would be reasonable to have some stand-by organization to deal with unforeseen and perhaps even unimaginable difficulties that might arise. However, it would be very hard for me to believe that we need anything approaching the organization that we have had, and which is being kept busy now to some extent doing things which I think are utterly unnecessary.
There is one further point I should like to make. The question may be raised about our relationship to the international monetary fund. Many in this house Will recall that when the Foreign Exchange Control Act became law five years ago in 1946 one of the arguments made by the minister-and I think quite properly-was that it flowed from our membership in the international monetary fund. Attention has been drawn in this house by myself and others to the fact that as the years have gone by the authorities of the international monetary fund have been very emphatic in pointing out that they felt a growing measure of freedom-the very thing we advocated-should be brought into play. Of course it is clear that when that was done last September the international monetary fund accepted it, so far as I know, with good grace. That is another question which may arise but, Mr. Speaker, I say again that I still hope that we may have something much more simple without all the punitive powers that the foreign exchange control board has, because it seems to me there is nothing on the horizon to suggest that the ordinary mechanism which the minister in effect put into operation last September cannot serve for current account. There is also nothing to suggest why the Bank of Canada organization coupled with the mechanism of the chartered banks cannot be sufficient to deal with whatever measure of control of capital movement may be necessary.


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words before the motion carries. I have listened with great interest today to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). I realize he is a former banker and is very familiar with foreign exchange and all the details connected therewith. I wish to take a few minutes to make a few remarks based on personal experiences I have had myself, and to say that I am strongly in support of the resolution. Since the Canadian dollar was allowed to seek its own level a few months ago it has been very noticeable that the margin between the rate of premium paid in the banks and the price charged Canadians requiring United States dollars has been very small. Previously, under arrangements not


of the same character, I have seen very wide margins between the buying and selling prices of United States dollars. As I have stated in this house on many occasions, I remember two periods-and incidentally they were both when we had Conservative governments here in Ottawa-when the difference between the buying and selling prices would be as high as six, eight and ten per cent. I may be wrong, but I have an idea the foreign exchange control board may be responsible for keeping these buying and selling prices very close, and I fear that if we discarded this board and had no way of controlling foreign exchange we might have the same condition we had during the first great war and in the early thirties.
I believe every Canadian should have the privilege of buying United States exchange at any time at a fair rate. In smaller towns we may have difficulties that are not found in larger cities. In a small town you may have only one bank; there is no competition, and conditions may be vastly different to those in larger cities. However, I do want to go on record as being very much in favour of this resolution. I believe the foreign exchange control board should be ready to function at any time circumstances demand it, and I believe many of the people in the section of the country from which I come are of the same opinion.


Mr. Hatfield:: Will this do away with all the forms, the export and import forms, the H forms; and can you accept Canadian money in payment of goods exported to the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this question should be reserved until the house is in committee on the resolution.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Does this do away with all the B forms, C forms, H forms, export forms and import forms; and can an exporter to United States now accept Canadian money in payment for his goods?


Douglas Charles Abbott: This extension of the Foreign Exchange Control Act if enacted, as I anticipate it will be, does not do away with all forms. As I indicated in my statement, as a result of recent relaxations a person making a short trip to the United States can take up to $100 without an H form, as often as he wishes. With respect to selling merchandise in the United States the same practice will be followed that has prevailed in the past; the exporter must receive payment in United States dollars. I am not personally familiar with the details of the forms used. I know my hon. friend is,

because he has quite a large export business. As far as I am aware there is no change in the general practice with respect to merchandise exports. They must be invoiced and paid for in United States dollars.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Then we still have to make out B forms for exports to bring back United States dollars in payment for those goods?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I believe that is correct.


Mr. Quelch:: What is the maximum amount a person can get if he wishes to go to the United States for a holiday, without making special application?


Douglas Charles Abbott: 


Victor Quelch: For the whole year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; he can get it-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Every day?


Douglas Charles Abbott: If it were clear that it was being abused I presume some action would be taken. Of course a person has to sign a simple form saying he has received the money. If that privilege were abused, if it were found on checking through that one person was getting a great many of these allowances in rapid succession, I daresay appropriate action would be taken to check on it. But the general rule is as I indicated in my statement, that as a result of successive relaxations one may now take up to $100.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister be able to say the amount involved in these travel moneys, if I may call them that? Is it substantial?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The amount is very substantial. I have not the figures here, but I am informed that since we have relaxed travel restrictions the amounts released for this purpose have increased enormously. That is understandable. We all know that many of us and our friends have been going to the United States more frequently than we used to and I think some of our wives are able to do a little more shopping in New York than they used to do. That has resulted in a very substantial additional demand for United States exchange. We expected that it would. We realized that the relaxation would be relatively expensive from the point of view of the loss of United States dollars, but we felt that our reserve position had reached a point where it was fully justified.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I understood that from now on this was going to be just a stand-by board. If an exporter has to make out all the forms he made out in the past in order to bring back United States funds for all his exports it may require one or two or half a dozen men in an office just to do that work, and all those forms have to come to Ottawa. So it will be more than a stand-by board.
Foreign Exchange Control Act


Douglas Charles Abbott: I realize that the completion of these forms does involve work for the exporter, but it is not possible to maintain an effective control of capital exports unless you are in a position to survey current account transactions. There are no restrictions on those, but it is considered in the national interest that exporters who are now selling to those areas should make their sales in United States dollars because, with the deficit of some $400 million last year in our trading account with the United States, which I indicated in my statement, we still need to get all the United States dollars that are properly available through our trading transactions.


Mr. Fair:: What is the value of the goods a person visiting the United States may bring back and how often may that be done?
Mr. Abbot!: That relates to customs, of course; but my recollection is that an individual in Canada can bring in $100 worth of merchandise duty free once every six months. Of course there is no limit on the amount he may bring in if he is prepared to pay the duty.


Mr. Knowles:: I think it is once every four months.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is not my department, so the time is subject to correction; but I know the limit is $100. That only relates to the amount one may bring in without paying duty. Since we have eliminated the Emergency Exchange Conservation Act anyone with the money can bring in anything he sees fit, providing he is prepared to pay the duty. I should add that I do not suppose the foreign exchange control board would give a man or woman unlimited funds to go to New York on a shopping spree. They would give any reasonable amount required for tourist travel in the United States which involved the making of reasonable purchases there.


Mr. Low:: By the time the budget comes down we will not have any money left for tourist travel.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a real limiting factor. I do not know how popular the relaxation of the travel restriction was with the husbands, but it was popular with the ladies.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Do I understand that you can carry $100 in United States funds back and forth across the border, without having it taken from you?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is what I understand.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: With the United States dollar on a free market, if it were brought to the attention of the foreign
1146	HOUSE OF
Foreign Exchange Control Act exchange board that the margin between the buying and selling prices of United States funds was wide or unreasonable, would the board have authority to rectify that situation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Under the act the foreign
exchange control board, which is the instrument of the Minister of Finance, has power to maintain orderly exchange conditions. If it saw that exchange quotations were gyrating pretty violently I daresay the minister would feel it might be appropriate to take some action to provide for orderly changes in exchange rates. It has not been necessary to intervene up to the present time.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Will the minister say whether the United States investor can take his capital gains out of the country? I understand he can take his dividends, but can he take capital gains?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think he can take out his capital gains, no. He can, of course, take current earnings out of the country. In the case of the removal of capital, whether it is capital which has been put in here or is an appreciation of capital assets, permission of the foreign exchange control board is required in order to take that capital out. I am not able to state offhand just what the attitude would be with respect to an individual transaction. The general rule is that in the case of capital which was in Canada prior to the inauguration of exchange control in 1939, that can only be taken out by special permission, and that permission would only be given in the light of general policy. On the other hand, permission is usually given for the withdrawal of capital which has come in since the beginning of exchange control.


Heber Harold Hatfield: The minister led the house to believe that the influx of United States capital into Canada was caused by economic conditions in Canada. I do not believe that at all. My understanding is that the United^ States investor was trying to get his money out of the country because he feared high taxation.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a matter of opinion.


Heber Harold Hatfield: If there is higher taxation in Canada, he will soon take it back.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister give us some description of the way in which track is kept of ordinary Canadian transactions in which goods are sold in the United States? The point of my question is this. Exporter A sells to the United States and he wishes to acquire United States dollars. If he is not able to get them, is he prevented from carrying out the transaction?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Any export of goods to the United States must be invoiced and paid for in U.S. dollars; that is still the rule. As I


indicated in my statement, by a recent relaxation services may be paid for in Canadian dollars. Now, as to the technical means by which that is traced, I shall get the information and give it to the hon. member, perhaps in committee on second reading. I understand that the exporter has to complete the proper form which is supplied by the customs officials. I daresay the member for Victoria-Carleton could explain this much better than I can, but I believe the exporter has to fill out a form in triplicate, whatever the form is, and one of those forms is available to the foreign exchange control board for checking to see that the exporter of that particular shipment has in fact invoiced it in U.S. dollars and, providing the purchaser is solvent, payment will be received in U.S. dollars. I believe that is substantially correct. I see the member for Victoria-Carleton is nodding his head, so I probably summarized it correctly.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The minister has said that the payment for goods is in U.S. funds. Is that a ruling of the board, or is it on the statute books?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is by regulation.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I can well recall that in one of the periods, I believe it was in the thirties, when I sold goods in the United States I was paid for it in Canadian dollars; that happened month after month. Perhaps the member for Victoria-Carleton received the same treatment. I recall that the member for Northumberland county in New Brunswick informed me he had been paid for pulp-wood in the same way. If the foreign exchange control board has any such regulation, it would meet with the support of the whole house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In these answers I am giving as to the detailed administration, I am not personally familiar with all the details, and if I have misstated them I will see that corrections are made on the second reading of the bill. I believe what I have said is substantially correct.


Mr. Stick:: Would the minister care to make a statement concerning the convertibility of sterling into Canadian dollars?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is rather a large question. We require that our exports to certain areas be paid for in U. S. dollars. As I indicated in my statement, we are getting fairly close to a balance with the United Kingdom. We require that our exports to the United Kingdom be paid for in sterling or Canadian dollars. Now, when the United Kingdom sells in Canada they have the option of deciding whether they will take payment in Canadian dollars or in sterling. What I presume they

do is to quote the price m sterling, and take Canadian dollars in payment to be used to pay for their own purchases from us.


Heber Harold Hatfield: The minister said that a person could take $100 of United States currency out of the country without signing any forms. Now, where does he get that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thought I said without an H form.


Heber Harold Hatfield: A person needs no forms?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think when you go to the bank to buy U.S. dollars you have to sign a receipt form?


Heber Harold Hatfield: That is what I was coming to. Can a person buy those U.S. dollars from another person, or does he have to go to the bank to buy them?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall have to check on that, but I think you have to purchase your dollars from an authorized source. I shall have to verify that. The essence of it is that you are entitled to take $100 without an H form.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Suppose the bank is closed and a person gets a hurried call, can he pick up the "$100 from a storekeeper or would that be against the law?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not sure about that. I shall have to check on that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister indicate the extent to which the regulations are administered by officials of the chartered banks, acting as agents for the foreign exchange control board and what staff there is on the board itself? What is the scope of the full-time employees of the board?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Under the Foreign Exchange Control Act, as the house will recall, the Bank of Canada is required to provide the staff and pay for the administration of the foreign exchange control regulations. The staff of the Bank of Canada allocated to the foreign exchange control board at December 31 was male, 98; female, 305; totalling 403.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: How did
that compare with what it was on September 30?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not September 30, but I have the figure for the preceding December 31, when it was 466 or 63 more.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Has the
minister the figures for the cost?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, the expenditure by the Bank of Canada on staff, premises, office supplies and equipment, travelling expenses -these figures are subject to verification
Foreign Exchange Control Act because the statement is not out yet-were $1,183,986; that is for the year ending December 31, 1950.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I should like to ask the
minister why he feels a man taking $100 in U.S. currency needs to go to the bank and sign a form in order to obtain that $100? If you are going to let him take it out every week or every month, and if there is no restriction-


Douglas Charles Abbott: We have to keep a record of how many times a person gets $50 or $100 in order to see he is not evading the regulations and effecting the export of capital.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Since the bank is your
agent, could the banker not exercise that judgment?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall bring my hon. friend's remark to the attention of those administering the regulation.


Mr. Blackmore:: The minister recognizes, of course, that with all these restrictions and the necessity of employing officials, as the hon. member has pointed out, the government has a policy which is directly forcing the price of goods up and causing inflation. It is not inflation caused by too much money but because of direct government manipulations. Now, that is the plain fact of the matter. I am not objecting, and I am not saying it is not necessary to do that. But it is of the utmost importance that the people of Canada know just exactly what is happening to them, so they are not deluded by a lot of foolish, ill-informed and malicious propaganda leading them to think that the cause of our inflation is too much money in circulation, so as to justify the government in levying such taxation as would be injurious to us. That is the reason I raised the question.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 147, to amend the Foreign Exchange Control Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Douglas Charles Abbott: Before we proceed with the next order of business, I wonder if I might ask the permission of the house to have proceedings suspended somewhere between half past five and a quarter to six in order that I may lay on the table the estimates and make the usual motion. I had hoped that the estimates would be ready a bit earlier. At that time also I should like to move to go into supply solely for the purpose of opening four departments.
1148	HOUSE OF
Foreign Exchange Control Act


Gordon Graydon: If we go by Hansard of Friday night, I think it will be found that the order of business set out there was for the debate on the resolution of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), which has just been concluded, and that the next order of business was to move to go into supply. I fancy that was the understanding of members generally, and I was wondering whether there was any special reason why a change should be made now.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, the estimates are not available for tabling right at this moment, but they will be at five-thirty. We cannot move to go into supply before we table the estimates. At the time of the tabling of the estimates, we will move to go into supply.


Gordon Graydon: Do I understand the minister to indicate that we shall have the estimates by five-thirty?


Douglas Charles Abbott: What I hope the house might be willing to do would be at about five-thirty to adjourn debate on whatever matter is taken up now in order that I might table the estimates, make the usual motion that they be referred to the committee of supply, and then move that we go into supply for the purpose of opening four departments. I thought we could perhaps do that. I am informed that the estimates will be available within another half hour.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe for the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Ross (Souris), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Wright.
James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), as reported at page 1069 of Hansard of Ma.ch 8, said among other things:
The fact is that the western farmers accepted the wheat board as the agency to sell their wheat.
' May I say that I have repeatedly stated that I am myself a supporter of the wheat board and that the officials of the board are in no way responsible for this colossal blunder of our federal government.
During 1947, when debating amendments to the wheat board act which provided legislation for the five-year wheat pool and for its being retroactive to include the 1945 and 1946 crops, I then stated that under this


scheme and under the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement I was going to quit growing wheat. I hope that hon. members will excuse this personal reference, but there have been some comments in some newspapers, and I should like to make my position clear. I said that I was going to quit growing wheat and I have ceased to grow commercial wheat. The minister said that I would be sorry when the final settlement was made. Practically all of the wheat participation certificates of mine are for wheat grown in the crop years of 1945 and 1946. I along with others voted against that amendment for the five-year pool and against making it retroactive to cover those two years. I am not sorry for that, but I am sorry for many of the wheat farmers whom I have the honour to represent in this parliament. I am exceedingly sorry for many of them.
With respect to the lengthy speech of confusion made by the Minister of Agriculture and certain remarks reported at page 1069 of Hansard with respect to certain estimates of losses for the purpose of misleading the farmer, may I suggest to anyone who is interested that he might study page 9 of the 1948-49 Canadian wheat board report and page 19 of the 1949-50 report which has been tabled just recently, and then figure out for himself by how many hundreds of millions of dollars the prairie farmers have been forced by this government to subsidize the consumers of Great Britain and Canada. While doing that, he might also figure out who has been attempting to lead the wheat farmers down the garden path, and for what reason. In my opinion, a royal commission on grain should be appointed by this government immediately to report upon marketing, grading, transportation, and storage of grain within Canada and abroad. I know there are many who will disapprove of a royal commission of any kind. I myself am not too fond of them. They will think that it is a costly business as well. May I say here to this house, and through this house to the country, that such a commission can be conducted and the cost will be considerably less than one bushel of wheat per farmer in the prairie provinces. Surely that is little as compared with the great trimming the farmers in those prairie provinces have taken under this five-year wheat pool. Speaking for myself, I am sincere in my belief that such a commission should be appointed for this purpose.
Those are all the remarks I wish to make at this stage on this particular measure.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, L rise to take part in this debate in, order to impress upon the government the need for reconsidering its decision that farmers will be paid only 8-3 cents as a final settlement in respect to the five-year pool. On March 2, following the announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that the payment would be only 8-3 cents per bushel, I made the statement that such a payment was completely unsatisfactory. I am even more convinced, at this time than I was then that a payment of 8-3 cents per bushel is nothing more or less than a double-cross of the western wheat producer. A payment so niggardly in no way takes into account the great sacrifices that the farmers made during that five-year period and it in no way compensates them for the have regard clause or for the fact that the Canadian consumer, during the whole five-year period, obtained cheap wheat at the expense of the wheat producer. I was glad to hear the statement of the Prime Minister this afternoon. I think it goes a long way towards clearing up the position in relation to the have regard clause which prevailed in May and early June of last year. After reading the statements of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), it seems clear that the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on May 30 still stands as a statement of fact, and that his statement of June 5 is also a statement of fact as of that date.
We have learned since then that while the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not agree as to the final statement on the have regard to clause, in his discussions with the British in May of last year, he did bring back a memorandum outlining the United Kingdom's position in relation to the have regard to clause, and the cabinet accepted that memorandum and thus made it possible for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to make his statement of June 5 which has already been read into the record a number of times, and which I shall read into the record again:
We went over the agreement while in London. We asked the United Kingdom government what further settlement it is to make on account of the "have regard to" clause. The United Kingdom government took a very strong position that they had fulfilled all obligations under that clause, and so far as the United Kingdom was concerned. We agreed on behalf of Canada that considering all the circumstances that was the case.
Then we have the further statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) this afternoon which substantiates the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on June 5. We have also the statement in Hansard of 80709-74
Canadian Wheat Board Act the Prime Minister on January 31, as recorded at page 7, and which reads as follows:
I will not say that negotiations have been opened with the government of the United Kingdom in that regard, but representations were made as to what I thought was the view prevailing throughout the wheat-producing provinces of Canada in regard to the fulfilment of all obligations under the five-year contract.
The result of everything that has been said, and of all the statements that have been made by ministers of the crown down to the present time, demonstrates that on June 5 of last year, or sometime previously to that, this government did not carry out the wishes of the western wheat producer in respect to the have regard to clause; that this government took from the British at that time a settlement in respect to the have regard to clause that was completely inadequate.


Mr. Gibson:: Could we go to war?


Hazen Robert Argue: Don't interrupt me with such a nonsensical interjection. The government, since June 5 of last year, has done nothing, and there was nothing it could do to re-open a contract that had already been settled and finalized by both parties to that contract.
We have the Minister of Agriculture just a few weeks ago making a trip by air to the United Kingdom, supposedly to discuss a further settlement on the have regard to clause. In view of all the statements that have been made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and by the Prime Minister, and what I am sure will be borne out by the documents exchanged between the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom when they are made public, it is completely obvious that the trip by the Minister of Agriculture to Britain was nothing more or less than a grand publicity stunt. The Minister of Agriculture did not have a hope in the world of really getting anything further from the British on account of the have regard to clause.
The other day I placed a question on the order paper and received a very interesting answer. Part 3 of the question read as follows:
Did the Minister of Agriculture take with him on this visit any official government documents or proposals relating to the purposes of his visit?
And the answer was: "No."
The Minister of Agriculture had no proposals from the federal government to offer to the British government as far as the have regard to clause was concerned, because the Canadian government realizes only too well, as also does the British government, that that contract was finalized on June 5, 1950, or a few days before.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
But I come to this again, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian government has been acting as the agents of the wheat producers of western Canada, and the wheat producers felt that they had a substantial and additional claim in the way of a final return on the basis of the have regard to clause; and they expected our government, before a final settlement was made, to attempt to have that have regard to clause fulfilled both in spirit and in letter.
It is perfectly clear now that the Canadian government back in June of last year did not in any way obtain a fulfilment of the have regard to clause. Therefore I think the stand of the wheat producers of western Canada is fair and just when they now demand from this government a further substantial payment because of the have regard to clause; and of course also because the Canadian wheat producer has had to subsidize the Canadian consumer throughout the five-year pool period.
In his speech last Thursday the Minister of Agriculture said, and I shall quote from page 1068 of Hansard:
In the second place, the class II wheat price which is used as the basis for figuring the loss up to $330 million (on the United Kingdom wheat agreement) is the price which the United States government paid American dealers for wheat-much of which they were trading to get their dollars back, and much of which they were giving away-plus the increased value of Canadian wheat because of greater protein content.
In other words, the price of our class 2 wheat was, according to the Minister of Agriculture, the United States price plus a substantial premium because of its greater protein content. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the evidence of the committee on agriculture last year shows that the price of class 2 wheat for the bulk of our wheat sold within that four-year period was at a figure much less than the United States price. In answering a question of mine, as reported at page 149 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee on agriculture and colonization, the chairman of the wheat board last year pointed out that at one time the Canadian wheat board offered three cargoes of Canadian olass 2 wheat to a prominent buyer at 46 cents a bushel under the United States price, and the offer was turned down. Page 149 of the evidence in reply to a question of mine shows that from August 1948 to July 1949 our class 2 wheat sold for as much as 33 cents a bushel under the United States price; and that in the next year, 1949, our wheat was sold for a discount as much as 51 cents a bushel under the United States price for a wheat that is of inferior quality, and not comparable as to grade.


Mr. Howe:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is that 51 cents under the price at which the Americans sold wheat, or under the price at which they gave away wheat?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not dealing with that particular point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: All I am saying is this, that the price of our class 2 wheat throughout the four-year period was not the American price plus a 20-cent premium, but in the last two years of the four-year period fell to as low as 51 cents a bushel under the American price, for an inferior type of wheat. This means that our class 2 wheat at one point was selling for as much as 71 cents a bushel less than comparable American wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would he tell us what the position was in the first two years which we have been all talking about?


An hon. Member:: You should know.


James Garfield Gardiner: Put it on the record.


Hazen Robert Argue: I will deal with that-and I take this information from the report of the wheat board. In the first two years we sold 94-7 million bushels at a 20-cent premium over the United States price. In the second two years we sold 102-5 million bushels at a substantial discount from the American price.


James Garfield Gardiner: And it was the first two years I was talking about.


Hazen Robert Argue: The statement I made earlier was that the greater portion of our class 2 wheat sold in the four-year period was under the American price. Our wheat producers are not asking the government to pay the full $2.36, the price for class 2 wheat which prevailed throughout the four-year period, they are not asking for the highest possible price. Even on class 2, the price, taking the four years together, was at a price lower than the American price. Our wheat producers have been asking for a final settlement of only $2 a bushel for the five-year period. Those wheat producers are not unreasonable; they are asking the government for a price which is 36 cents a bushel less than the price of class 2 wheat.
At page 17 of the report of the wheat board there are statistics for the quantities of Canadian wheat sold at various prices. I have done some calculations on the basis of those statistics. It is clear that during the four-year period we subsidized the Canadian consumer to the extent of $127-6 million.

One also could add to that the $48 million we subsidized the Canadian consumer prior to February 17, 1947. Then, by comparing the prices in the U.K. wheat agreement with the class 2 price for wheat, we subsidized the United Kingdom consumer in that four-year period to the extent of $380-2 million. This makes a total subsidy of both the Canadian and United Kingdom consumers of well over $500 million.
The wheat producers of western Canada are not asking the government to pay $500 million into the five-year pool; but they are determined that they will get more than the token payment of $65 million, which represents only 13 cents on the dollar. They feel they have good reason to ask a further substantial payment.
They have the statement of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) on August 15, 1946, in reply to the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) to the effect that while the government had provided $200 million for price support of agricultural products other than wheat, similar arrangements could be made for wheat, should the farmers' costs of production continue to increase.
The farmer has always asked and continues to ask for stability. But it is not good enough to stabilize wheat prices and then let the cost of production shoot higher and higher. On the basis of the statement of the Minister of Agriculture and other members of the government that not only would stabilization be applied to the price of wheat, but that through an orderly decontrol program we would not have inflation, I say the western wheat producers now have a claim for an additional payment over and above the 8-3 cents.
The western wheat producers have never agreed, and do not agree today, that they should be called upon to subsidize the Canadian consumer. They are opposed to subsidizing the Canadian consumer. They take the stand that if the Canadian consumer should get cheaper flour and cheaper bread, that subsidy should be paid out of the national treasury of the country, and that it should not be saddled on the backs of one particular group, namely the western wheat producer.
The Minister of Agriculture himself seems to have taken that position before, because, as reported at page 4806 of Hansard lor August 14, 1946, he said:
Having said that, may I say that farm organizations generally, the farmers in particular, and most of us who represent wheat-growing constituencies in this house have always questioned the advisability of charging the farmer up with the difference 80709-741
Canadian Wheat Board Act between whatever the price was and the price at which wheat was being supplied to the millers . . . I agree with those who say that that whole cost should not be charged up to the farmer, and in discussions in the past I have maintained that too much of the cost has been charged up to the farmer. I still maintain that we should get away from that just as soon as we possibly can.
In agreeing to that five-year pool, the western wheat producer believed the statement of the Minister of Agriculture that the government was going to cease forcing the wheat producers to subsidize the Canadian consumer. Even today the wheat producer is forced to sell his wheat to the Canadian consumer for 25 cents a bushel less than the price of class 2 wheat.
On the same page the minister makes this further statement:
Having said that may I revert to what I said a few moments ago. The argument is not all on one side. The treasury has paid the losses on our wheat before; it may have to pay losses again and those losses if paid will be paid to the same farmers against whom this cost was charged up. That is the position at the moment.
I say on the basis of that statement alone the western wheat producers have an ironclad argument for the government making a further payment over and above the 8-3 cents a bushel.
Hon. members on all sides of the house realize that this is the hottest issue we have had to debate this session. The government must well know that the federation of agriculture in Saskatchewan, together with the executive of the western agricultural conference, have just had a meeting at Regina, and that they are sending a delegation to Ottawa to present to the government a unanimous submission on their behalf.
This is a hot political issue on the prairies. I say that if any prairie provincial government, Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba, went to the country in 1951 the Liberal party would go down to overwhelming and disastrous defeat, on the basis of this wheat payment.
However, I do not wish to conclude on a political note, but I do want to ask the government to reconsider the decision with respect to 8-3 cents, and I make the plea that western prairie members who represent wheat constituencies, particularly my fellow M.P.'s in the Liberal party who come from Saskatchewan, should stand up and vote in favour of the C.C.F. subamendment calling for a final payment of 25 cents a bushel.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr..
Speaker, I do not intend to take very long, soi my hon. friend across the way will have a chance to finish what he has to say before

Canadian Wheat Board Act six o'clock. I should not like this opportunity to pass without saying a word on this subject. As the last speaker has said, it is a very important question. When speaking in the house the other day the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) agreed that it was a most serious problem. I think it is a question concerning which we should try to get the facts before the people. At least we should try to get the facts before the house without endeavouring to confuse them.
Let me say at the start that in my view the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) the other day attempted to introduce another issue. He tried to create a disagreement in the house and throughout the country on the question of whether or not the wheat board was a marketing agency acceptable to the farmers. I do not think that could ever be an issue here. It certainly could never be an issue with the farmers of western Canada because I think they are unanimous in preferring the wheat board as the marketing agency. The thing they do object to most strenuously, however, is political interference in the operations of the wheat board. As long as we are going to have a Liberal government inflicted on us I think there is no person I would rather see at the head of the Department of Agriculture than the present minister.
I think the minister has endeavoured to put up an argument for western agriculture but this time it has been a lamentable one. He has found himself in an impossible position, and one who reads his speech of the other day, both the revised and the unrevised, will find that that is true. I want to refer to a statement to which reference has already been made on many occasions. I do not do so for the sake of argument. I want to put it on Hansard so that I can make reference to it as I go along. These remarks were made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on June 5, 1950, and are found at page 3221 of Hansard for that year. They read as follows:
We went over the agreement while In London. We asked the United Kingdom government what further settlement it is to make on account of the "have regard to" clause. The United Kingdom government took a very strong position that they had fulfilled all obligations under that clause, and so far as the United Kingdom was concerned. We agreed on behalf of Canada that considering all the circumstances that was the case.
When these remarks were referred to the other day the Minister of Agriculture took very strong objection to them. As recorded at page 1121 of Hansard for March 9, 1951, he said, when replying to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold well):
The report in Hansard is obviously not a correct report. All I am saying is that hon. members should

not insist on quoting as a statement of policy or as a decision of the government a report which is obviously incorrectly stated.
In making that statement it seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture was taking unto himself the position of trying to define something that somebody else had said in this house. When we refer to what the person who made the statement claims we see that he holds an entirely different view. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) interrupted the speech of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) on one occasion, on Friday last, he had this to say, as recorded at page 1115 of Hansard:


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Minister of Trade and Commerce has never at any time intimated that he wished to change the statement he made in June, 1950.
The Hansard report continues as follows:


Victor Quelch: You do not want to change the statement you made in June, 1950? Then it stands?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Of course it stands.


Victor Quelch: Then I have nothing to take back at all. If you accept that statement, you accept the statement by Mr. Gaitskell; then fine, an agreement was reached in May, 1950, that no other payment should be made. Well, that is fine. Now we all agree.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps I had better explain this
matter.
Once again the Minister of Agriculture is trying to straighten out the mess that the government has found itself in. The Minister of Agriculture jumped up and said: Now, what this fellow Howe has said is not right; I will have to explain it again. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce does not pay much attention to him because he says that the statement that he made stands.


An hon. Member:: Why would he?


Charles Edward Johnston: Further evidence that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was right is found when the Minister of Agriculture was speaking with respect to Mr. Gaitskell's statement in the British House of Commons. At page 1120 of Hansard for March 9 the minister said:
This is the newspaper report:
"Gaitskell was asked in Commons what additional sum was payable to Canada in view of the contracted price and the world price of wheat during the last two years of the contract. 'None,' Gaitskell replied. 'The matter was fully discussed in 1950 with Mr. Howe and the result was that no further payment will be made'."
I have read that exactly as the Minister of Agriculture put it on Hansard because once again he made a mistake. Then the minister continues:
That does not say that Mr. Howe agreed with it.


Mr. Coldwell:: The words are, "was to be made." I have the British Hansard here.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not a copy of the British
Hansard, but it is "will be made" in this report which has appeared all across Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: I have the British Hansard.


James Garfield Gardiner: Read it.


Major James William Coldwell: This reads:
[DOT]'The matter was discussed in May, 1950, with Mr. Howe and the result was that no further payment was to be made."
There again we have confirmation that the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in this house was correct. On top of that, no matter what the Minister of Agriculture may say, we have the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) today in reply to a motion for production of papers by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) involving the minute brought back from London. The Prime Minister made the statement that the Canadian government agreed to accept as the position of the British government that the agreement had been fulfilled. That cannot mean anything else but that the federal government agreed that the wheat agreement was fully and finally settled on the basis of the last payment of $65 million. I wanted to get the record straight in that one respect. Regardless of what the Minister of Agriculture has had to say on the matter, I think there is no doubt that the agreement was definitely and finally settled on the basis of the $65 million payment.
Now I want to review for just a moment the amount of money coming to the farmers.
I do so because later on I want to refer to the statement of the Minister of Agriculture as to the amount he and the government think was still owing. These figures can be verified by the statement placed on Hansard the other day by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair). The loss to the farmers under the British wheat agreement during the four years 1946 to 1950 was $431,676,844. The loss to the farmers as a consequence of selling wheat to Canadian millers during those four years was $136,920,921, or a total loss of $568,597,765. The amount available to be paid out was $120 million, leaving a net loss of $448,597,765.
Having placed these figures on record I want to refer to the first figure I gave a moment ago as the loss under the British wheat agreement, which was $431,676,844. When we deduct from that the $120 million which is to be paid to the farmers the amount outstanding is $311,676,844. According to our figures that is the amount still owing the farmers. The Minister of Agriculture does not agree with that. The other day at page 1122 of Hansard he said he did not consider that anything like $330 million was still payable to the farmers; that was out of all reason. Then he said:
-I said to them that so far as we were concerned on the most favourable terms to Great Britain we figured the actual loss to be $166 million.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
I have been to quite a few sideshows in my life, where I have seen magicians pull rabbits out of hats, but I never saw anything to compare with the way the minister dealt with this $166 million. I have read over his statement carefully many times to see exactly what he meant, and I think I have it clearly in mind now. He starts assuming, incorrectly I think, that the amount owing the farmers is $166 million. If you will note the figure I mentioned just before that, some $310 million, that shows the farmers losing $144 million right off the bat. Oh, of course, we will not consider that; that was the farmers' money, and it is just thrown out the window. Then the minister went on to discuss this $166 million and said: If we consider the fifteen years prior to the beginning of the wheat agreement, which would be back in 1931, we will find that the difference between the Canadian and United States prices was fifteen cents. Why he should take the depression years I do not know.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend will permit me, I took all the fifteen years from 1931 on, not just one year.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is right; I said the fifteen years prior to the beginning of the wheat agreement.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is an average over all years, whether depression or not.


Charles Edward Johnston: No, it makes a big difference, because during those depression years the price there was always much higher than it was in Canada. In any event that was the period he took; then he said right off the bat that would amount to $48 million, so the $166 million is now reduced to $118 million. If that is not pulling rabbits right out of the hat I should like to know what it is. The Canadian farmers lost $48 million just like that. That is quite a method of paying off the farmers. This may be a hot question, but it is going to be a hot proposition for the minister to prove that is a fair and equitable settlement to the farmers in western Canada.
Well, now we have it down to $118 million. Then listen to what the minister had to say:
If you take that figure then you find there is $48 million that should be deducted from losses in the first two years. That brings us down to $118 million. I went on to say:	We are not
going to attempt to prove that any figure short of a round figure is a reasonable figure to be asking under the terms of an agreement such as this, and therefore we are of opinion that $100 million would settle the bill.
So another $18 million goes out the window just like that. Surely no reasonable person, not even a Liberal sitting on the other side of the house, could agree to that. The $166 million has been reduced to $100 million

Canadian Wheat Board Act just like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Then the minister had this to say:
Another proposal had been made that we might consider $70 million a settlement, and what I said at the end of my speech last night was that under the arrangement which was made for the final year there might have been a settlement of $35 million.
Let us see how the minister handles that $35 million. Of course this is the money of the farmers, and it is not very difficult to whittle it down. A little further on he said:
If you take into consideration the fact that we did get $1.98 a bushel for our wheat owing to the fact that there was devaluation of the pound, then the sum that we did obtain under that arrangement was $16 million and not $35 million.
So, owing to devaluation, all the farmers actually got was $16 million. The $35 million was settled for $16 million, and another $19 million went out the window. Well, if you take the $35 million and the $65 million the government has agreed to take out of the national treasury and put into the fund that makes the $100 million. So all that is left out of the $166 million will be the $16 million which came through devaluation and which was in the wheat board treasury, and the $65 million which is to be paid out of the national treasury. That is all they will get of the $166 million the minister figured was the actual loss. Then he had this to say in conclusion:
When you take all these facts into consideration, that we had asked $100 million, that they could claim, by having all the arguments on their side allowed, to have settled $35 million, there was still $65 million owing, and that $65 million has been paid.
Well, it was never paid by the British government. It was paid by the Canadian taxpayers, including the farmers. In other words the farmers are being taxed to pay themselves back. Then the minister went on, and this is the finest gem I have read for some time:
So far as the farmer is concerned it can be argued that the matter has been settled in the same manner as it would have been settled if Great Britain had made all the settlement that we asked them to make when we were in the midst of these discussions. I think that should be made clear to the house.
In other words, he says that we have just disregarded the $48 million to start with; we have whittled off another $16 million and then a further $19 million, and we have it down now to $65 million. He says that now everything is going to be fine. I do not think it is going to be fine. I do -not blame the farmers of western Canada for being greatly perturbed over the loss of this huge sum of money which they rightly had coming to them. When you recall that the actual loss to the farmers by reason of the United Kingdom agreement was $311,676,844, and then
IMr. Johnston.]
when you add to that, as the last speaker indicated, another $136,920,921 which was the loss on wheat sold to the millers in Canada, you find that the total loss amounts to $448,597,765. How can you expect agriculture to be satisfied with such an agreement?
You know, Mr. Speaker, it was rather amusing to read a statement attributed to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in a newspaper dated March 8. I should like to put this statement on the record because I think it comes in at this point, particularly after this government has just finished chiselling the farmers to the extent I have indicated. This report appears in the Citizen of Thursday, March 8, and it reads:
Industry Farm Balances Urged by St. Laurent London, Ontario.-Keeping what he termed "proper balance" between Canada's agricultural progress and her industrial development was urged by Prime Minister St. Laurent in a surprise visit to the Middlesex seed fair and food show at Queen's park yesterday.
Canada, he noted, has been going ahead industrially "at a very rapid rate." Agriculture must keep pace because "a country is in a bad way if it cannot produce all the food it needs."
Proper distribution of food is also important "if agriculture is to continue as the cornerstone of the economy of this great nation," declared the Prime Minister.
How could he reasonably expect agriculture to continue to be the cornerstone of this great industrial nation when the government itself, through its policy, is the direct cause of the farmers losing $448 million? I believe we should be logical about the matter. Certainly, one cannot expect such a condition to continue.
Just before I left home to attend this session, I attended a meeting of the agricultural producers in Carbon, Alberta. It is not a large town, it is partly a mining town and partly agriculture. At any rate approximately 300 farmers attended the meeting and passed a resolution unanimously that the payment should be at least another 25 cents.
I have just received a letter from the farmers' union of Alberta at Carbon, local No. 1005, dated March 10 and reading as follows:
Dear Sir:
I am instructed by the above local to urge you to do all in your power to obtain the sum of 25 cents per bushel for the final payment of the five-year wheat pool. We feel that we farmers are actually entitled to more than this amount, yet will be satisfied if the dominion government agrees to pay out this sum, making up the balance of what is held at the moment by the Canadian wheat board with further moneys from the Canadian treasury.
Yours very truly,
Secretary-Treasurer.
When 300 farmers come out to a meeting in one of those small towns, the matter must be of some importance. You can well imagine that when we return home we are going to

have larger attendances at these meetings. This government is going to find that the farmers will not sit down and take it. Surely no respectable government would expect the agricultural industry to bear such a tremendous loss when it is remembered that during the last war other industries did not carry such losses. In fact, they did not carry any losses but were, in most cases, subsidized. When that is recalled and compared with what is happening to agriculture, there is just no reason in the attitude of this government.
When the war started there was legislation passed in this house to the effect that manufacturers' profits were limited to five per cent. I was a member of the war expenditures committee at that time. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) reported that he was not able to place one contract under that limitation, so the five per cent was raised. The very opposite action was taken with regard to agriculture. With world prices high, agricultural prices were forced down. It was through government action, and not the wheat board, that this wheat was sold at such a reduced price. It was a deliberate policy of this government. I was speaking at a meeting once when there were some Liberals present. They were objecting to these arrangements of the government for handling their wheat. I said to them, "I am sorry for those who did not vote Liberal, but you fellows who voted Liberal are getting just what you asked for". I think they are beginning to realize that. I believe that when the next election rolls around the other provinces will follow Alberta's example and clean house with the Liberals.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion?


Mr. Juiras:: I would move the adjournment of the debate until later this day.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the understanding of the house that the debate on the wheat bill may be resumed later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



MAIN ESTIMATES, 1951-52 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1952, was presented' by Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.
Main Estimates, 1951-52 Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the message from His Excellency together with the estimates presented this day be referred to the committee of supply.
In doing so, I do not propose to make any lengthy statement, either in regard to the form of the estimates, in which there have been many changes in detail as a result of recommendations of the public accounts committee last year, or in regard to the figures. Instead I am following the practice that my predecessors and I have followed in past years of issuing a detailed statement to the press at the time the estimates are presented to the house. Copies of the statement will be available at my office for any member wishing to have one. Perhaps I might merely say, first, in regard to the form, that most of the suggestions of the public accounts committee have been adopted, and much more detail included. As a result, the volume is much larger-540 pages this year compared with 322 last year. Members will also find a pocket inside the back cover of this book, into which will fit a large table which is being printed separately and which will be available in two or three days, showing a cross classification of expenditures of various types in each department, as the committee recommended. As regards the figures themselves, the grand total of the estimates is, of course, much larger than this past year, because expenditures on defence and defence production have increased from about $770 million in this current year to $1,664 million in the new year-an increase of $894 million. The estimates for all other departments amount in total to approximately $1,923 million, compared with $1,958 million for the current year, including those supplementanes already appropriated. Thus we show a reduction for departments other than defence of $35 million, notwithstanding substantially higher levels of costs.
Motion agreed to.
Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee of supply.



COST OF LIVING

Ellen Louks Fairclough: Before Your Honour leaves the chair, I wish to say a few words. Events of the past few months have seriously aggravated a situation which is itself rooted in both the domestic and international problems of the times. The grave unrest in the country today, coupled with the anxiety and uncertainty of all levels

Cost of Living
of production and trade, is reflected in this latest report from the bureau of statistics which came out the other day and which shows a sudden sharp increase in the cost of living over the previous month of 2 [DOT] 7 points, of almost 3 points.
It might be well to review the figures which have been published and which have become more or less familiar to all of us. Since 1945 the index has risen from 119-5 to 175-2, according to the latest calculation; and, judging toy the prices of consumer goods in the stores today, it is likely that they are considerably higher than that at the moment. It is significant that, where the monthly index fluctuated somewhat for the year 1949, showing a net increase of some 6-5 points, the year 1950 shows a record of steady increase, to close with a net increase of 9-6 points. Then we have the spectacle of the January report of this year showing an increase of 1 * 4 and the February report showing a further increase of 2-7.
It is my belief that one of the reasons for the sudden and sharp increase which was noted in this last report is the government's bland disregard of this situation and the feeling throughout the country that no one knows exactly where we are going. The February 1951 figures as released by the bureau of statistics show an increase of 13-6 over the same period for 1950. May I draw to the attention of the house the fact that the heaviest single monthly increases in 1950 were in the months of March and July. We are already well into March; and while I am aware that the figures which are reported are for the preceding month, I predict that the March report will follow the 1950 pattern, and probably the April one also.
As other costs rise, the cost of municipal administration rises with them; and the reports of local tax rates on real estate which have filled the newspapers this last month bear adequate testimony to the impact at the municipal level. All requirements of municipal services have been hit. All sorts of supplies, uniforms, cost of buildings, sewers, sidewalks and roads, as well as the necessary adjustments in wages, inadequate though they may be, have been added to the load. This in turn has provided an additional burden for the home owner and a further aggravation of the rental housing situation. Rather than help, this government, in the housing field alone, has aggravated the situation still further by the double-barrelled onslaught of the abolition of rent control and the curtailment of housing loans.
I hold no particular brief for the type of rent control which was in effect; for, like much government legislation, it was sadly in need of revision. Likewise, with the 
housing loans, the problem of supplies should have been met from an angle which would not have deprived the small income groups of the opportunity to purchase those houses which were available. In each case I suggest that the load might have been lightened by intelligent legislation rather than jettisoned. I predict further that the curtailment of mortgage loans will shortly result in increased demand for subsidized rental housing and that it will be found that the responsibility has not been lost but merely been shifted.
The average housewife today, whether or not she understands the economic pressures which contribute to the situation which we have, knows full well that her dollar will not buy her requirements. The pay envelope no longer keeps the family. She must deprive herself and her children of all of the luxuries and of many of the necessities of life or she must take the only alternative and go into debt.
Whether she is the wife of a farmer, a labourer or an industrial worker or whether the breadwinner in her family is in the great army of unorganized white-collar workers, is a small businessman, or is engaged in the practice of one of the professions, she knows the strain of trying to feed and clothe her family with an inadequate income. Some of these people have a moderate chance of increasing their income. Others have none at all. At the very top of the list of those who are helpless in the face of advancing costs are the pensioners and those who are trying to live on fixed incomes of one kind or another. To these people, many of them approaching the end of their lives, the picture is extremely dark indeed. It would seem to them, I am sure, that the only thing left for them to do is to depart this life altogether. But they are even afraid to die because the price of burials has also risen.
I am not making a morbid jest, Mr. Speaker;
I am extremely serious when I say that to those families, burdened with heavy medical and hospital costs and subsequent burial costs, the debt-ridden future looks black indeed. There is literally nothing that has not risen in price. This is the government's problem. This is the government's responsibility. This is no time for the pursuit of a policy of laissez-faire and it is no time for guessing. Theory does not feed hungry stomachs; it does not clothe bodies and it does not shelter families. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge on this government to withdraw its head from the sands of theoretical supposition and look upon this grim reality of current conditions and to take practical cognizance of the plight

of our families; and to this end, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon):
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"This house regrets that the government, in face of the continuing increase in the cost of living and particularly in the face of the recent sharp rise thereof, refuses to take effective measures to protect the Canadian family budget."
Amendment negatived on division.



POSTAL SERVICE


Joseph William Noseworthy: Before the main motion is adopted there is another matter that I want to discuss in the house, namely, the matter pertaining to the new system that is being inaugurated by the Post Office Department. As we all know, the Post Office Department has recently inaugurated a one-a-day delivery in cities and urban areas that heretofore have been receiving a two-a-day delivery service.
Generally speaking, I think the Canadian people will approve of any move made by the government to economize in the government's service, particularly in this critical period. The question does arise, though: why should the Post Office Department be the first department in which the government chooses to exercise that policy? The Post Office Department is the first department in which we have the application of that policy.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is only a little more noticeable there.


Joseph William Noseworthy: And it is the one department of government that differs from others, in that it is paid for directly by the public. It is a public service for which those who use the mails pay. It is not a department that like other departments is a drain upon the public treasury; and we question whether the government, which in past years has shown a profit in the post office of I think something over $12 million, which was reduced last year to something more than $2 million, is really justified in operating the Post Office Department at a profit. The question arises as to just what justification there is for a government taking out of the users of the mail service a profit to that extent.
I presume it is because there was a drop in profits last year that the government is now attempting to reduce the service. It seems to me to be poor business to be paying the Trans-Canada Air Lines, and other air lines, what I think amounts to about three times the rate charged by the rail services to fly 80709-75
Postal Service
mail into our large cities, and to leave that mail lying for twenty-four hours or more in the post office without being delivered, as will be the case under the present system.
There are in my riding a great many of those walks which, while they do not contain more than twenty-five per cent business calls, do contain a great many business calls, and businessmen who have their offices on the residential streets, organizations which maintain their offices on those residential streets, are already complaining, and I think quite fairly, of the service.
I have a letter here from one organization which carries on business across this province, and which receives a great deal of mail during the day. During the past week it has been getting its mail after 6.30 every evening. That is not good service, and no private company would put up with that kind of service for a moment.
Apart altogether from the service to the public there is the effect of this service upon the postmen employed. This is a rather important topic into which I want to go at some length, Mr. Speaker, and I should like you to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, before six o'clock I had raised the question as to why the government had phosen to inaugurate its economy policy in the one department of government that was being paid for by the users of that service, rather than being paid for out of general taxation, I now have before me the minister's report for the year ended March 31, 1949, and I find that since 1932 there has been one year only in which that department did not show a net surplus. That net surplus amounted in 1944 to $12,500,000. It dropped to $9,800,000 in 1948 and to $2,900,000 in 1949. I find that the drop from 1948 to 1949 was due in the first instance to the fact that about $5,600,000 had been spent on increased salaries. However I find also that there was an increase of $1,800,000 paid to Trans-Canada Air Lines for the inauguration of the so-called all-up service.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: In 1948.


Joseph William Noseworthy: In 1948-49. I understand that Trans-Canada Air Lines charged $1.81 per ton mile for the carrying of mail, which is just about three times as much as they charge for the carrying of express and cargo traffic. I suggest that if the department wanted to economize in post office

Postal Service
expenditures, pressure should have been brought to bear on Trans-Canada Air Lines to reduce their charges for the carrying of mail to something approximating their express and cargo traffic charges.
Then, I notice in a report given by the deputy postmaster general, Mr. Turnbull, before the transport and communications committee last March that the post office last year had a deficit of $8 million due to the fact that the postage rate on periodicals is less than the cost of making delivery. It may well be that it would be in the national interest for the Canadian government to subsidize magazine publishers-possibly Canadian magazine publishers. I can well understand the difficulty the publishers of Canadian magazines may have, particularly when they are in competition with American magazines. But I doubt the wisdom of making the users of the mail service pay those subsidies-and certainly anything which would subsidize foreign magazines. If it is necessary to subsidize Canadian magazines, then I suggest that it should be paid as a direct subsidy, and not charged up against those who use the mails.
I suggest that before the government undertook to curtail this service to the public, for which the public is making direct payment, it should have investigated other ways and means of economizing within the department. I believe there is good ground for criticism in the way this new policy regarding mail delivery was introduced. As I understand it a blanket order was issued, applicable across the country, whereby a postman is required to take his own route, and either a half or a third of an adjoining route.
I suggest that any well-managed industry, before undertaking a change in policy as drastic as that, one which would affect the public and employees to the extent this change does, would have carried out some experiments. It would have found out, through experiments, just how the new policy would work, and what difficulties would be encountered. I believe that if the government had taken any one postal district in any one of our larger cities, and spent a month or two in attempting to work out the new delivery system, it would not have found it feasible to add one-half or one-third of one route to another route, and making delivery once a day, without overburdening the postman or requiring him to work more than a forty-four-hour week. I believe the department would have discovered that such a blanket order could not have been put into effect without to a very great extent disrupting a service universally recognized across the country as one of our most efficient government services.

For a few moments I should like to speak about the effect of this change upon mail carriers- Hon. members have read in the press about mass meetings of postmen in a number of our larger cities. Some of us in the house had the opportunity of attending one of those mass meetings in Toronto. There we were told that postmen in all the Toronto postal districts had kept an accurate check of the hours they had had to work the previous week in order to complete their deliveries. Many of them, instead of having to work forty-four hours as they were supposed to do, worked up to as much as sixty hours. I hold in my hand a report from one postal district in Toronto. Even before the change I find that every man in that postal district was working from one to two hours over and above the forty-four-hour week. The shortest week worked in that district before the change was made was forty-eight hours. The average for the entire district having 23 routes was not 44 hours a week before the change but 49 hours and 53 minutes, nearly 50 hours a week before any change was introduced when they were still supposed to be working 44 hours.
Last week, with the new system in operation, the 27 postmen in that district worked an average of 52J hours instead of 44. There are just two points I want to raise in that connection. In addition to the longer hours there is the extra amount of mail that has to be delivered during the day. Every report that I have been able to secure indicates that the postmen are required to carry considerably more than the regulation weight of mail. They are working longer hours, and the majority of these postmen are great war veterans. Many of them are veterans of the first world war who have been in the service of the Post Office Department for 20 years or more. They are finding the extra load and the extra hours extremely difficult.
There is the further fact that they are required to work four or five hours a day over their eight-hour day through no fault of their own. These extra hours are thrown upon them because of the department's policy in inaugurating this new system of delivery. They were raising no objection to having to go to the post office an hour before starting time in order to get their mail ready for their routes. None of them raised any objection to working 48 or 50 hours instead of 44 under the old system. Now they are required to work 53 to 60 hours. In all fairness, if the government is to deal with these employees as fairly as it expects industry and employers generally to deal with their employees, then the government owes it to these men to pay them for that extra time.

I raised that question in the house this afternoon on the orders of the day and was told that as yet the government has given no consideration to paying for these extra hours. For two weeks the Toronto stations have been on the new system. It will probably take many more weeks before the routes are adjusted to a point where delivery can be made in an eight-hour day. Until such time as that takes place I submit that these extra hours should be paid for by the government. I think it is entirely unfair to throw upon thousands of employees delivering mail for the Post Office Department anywhere from five to ten extra hours a week through no fault of their own, simply because the department inaugurated the system without having properly worked out the details or knowing what the effect of the application of the system would be. I suggest that the government should take into consideration payment for the extra time worked.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this subject. I find it hard to understand why the letter carriers of the Post Office Department were picked on in the way that they have been in this drive for economy. It may be because the Postmaster General is a new minister. Others may be taking advantage of the fact that he is a junior member of the cabinet, is perhaps a little reluctant to argue with the older members, and so forth. 'That is the only reason I can see because in dealing with price controls the government says there is no emergency, and if and when there is an emergency they will implement the emergency powers. Second, in the matter of defence production the same thing is true. The government is taking stand-by legislation in case they may have to use it.
In speaking about the possibilities of war in the foreseeable future the Prime Minister has said, outside this house of course, that he believes there is no immediate danger of over-all war, that he expects to live a long time and does not expect to see an over-all war in his lifetime. That is all very reassuring but the government then decide that they must cut drastically civilian spending, the ordinary expenditures of government. They say that we have to offset in some way the huge defence expenditures that we are now making because we may have to face a conflict some time in the future.
So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I am in agreement with the government on its drive to institute measures that will reduce as far as possible, without impairing the services of the country, any department of the government that is considered nonessential. I cannot understand, however, and I cannot go along with the government in 80709-75J
Postal Service
picking on the letter carriers, who represent about the lowest status in the postal department.
Who are these letter carriers? The great majority of them across this country are veterans of the first war. Many of them are disability pensioners. They are reaching an age when in a few years they will be retiring on the maximum pension paid under the civil service. Many of these men have made commitments. They have bought homes. They have planned their lives so that they may be able to eke out an existence on their pensions if and when they are retired. This economy measure of the government is resulting in the dismissal from the service of many of these older men. They will have to take their pensions prematurely which will mean a lot less than they anticipated on the basis of being able to work out their terms of service.
That is one angle. Second, the minister and others have created the impression at least that they are reducing the work, that they are cutting down the number of deliveries. Cutting down the number of deliveries is not reducing the work. You are going to carry exactly the same amount of mail but you are going to have twelve hundred fewer letter carriers across the country to make deliveries. The figures I have seen in the press indicate that approximately twelve hundred mail carriers are to be laid off. I think I would be safe in saying that the great majority of these fellows will be the older personnel, from the first war; and even if they are young men it does not alter the picture. The result is exactly the same; the same amount of mail will be carried by just that many fewer letter carriers across the country, which means that the load will have to be increased.
I am not arguing at all for the continuation of two or three mail deliveries a day. One delivery a day is good enough for me, as I think it is good enough for almost everyone in this country. I am arguing against picking on those with the very lowest status in the department, men who are absolutely essential, men who have been accepted into the civil service and have planned their lives accordingly. At a moment's notice, because of a hypothetical emergency which is not recognized in any other government department, these men are to have their lives interrupted and all their plans for the future disrupted.
I do not think that can be justified. If the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) came in and said he was going to cut his office staff across the country by fifty per

Postal Service
cent, I would say perhaps he was justified. That would not hurt anyone very much. II the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) came in and said he was going to wipe out a certain branch for the duration of the war I would1 say perhaps that could be justified, that no one would suffer very much and perhaps it would not even be noticed, though of course he would have to keep on the geologists because they are very busy people. I would not argue with economy measures of that kind for the purpose of increasing defence production and providing the necessary office staff for the new department. But I am strongly arguing against picking on men in the mail carrier category, because I think they are essential. They have rendered good service for many years, and I do not think the government can justify the adoption of a policy, without consultation with the civil service organizations, which uproots so many of these employees.
I suggest to the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) that he take another look at it. He is not going to save very much money by penalizing the letter carriers, but in my opinion he is going to create a great deal of resentment across the country. Then when he comes to resume this service he may have a great deal of difficulty getting the necessary employees, because I should think anyone treated this way would hesitate before accepting service with a branch of the government which pulled that kind of thing on their predecessors. Personally I think this is about the meanest cut that could be made. Others can defend themselves. Men with ability in certain directions can be shifted from one department to another, or they can be let out. They can always rehabilitate themselves. But when you take a mail carrier and throw him in the street you are putting him in the ranks of the unemployed, and it is very doubtful if you will ever get him back into government service. In view of the small amount of money that will be saved and the hardship and injustice that will be created, I suggest that the Postmaster General take another look and leave the letter carrier service as it was.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to bring up this matter on the estimates, but since the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) has raised it this evening I should like to say a word or two. The two previous speakers have dealt with the general situation, and I should like to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) the situation in my own city.
While I appreciate the need for economy in this direction, I think perhaps economy can be overdone if it interferes with the efficiency

and comfort of the employees. My information is that in Saskatoon some 580 hours of overtime were worked in 24 days in February. The weather in Saskatoon in February is rather difficult, and I am informed that these men carried out that overtime work under a great deal of strain. The overtime was done on 24 routes; I am not clear on the matter, but I understand the men are not going to be compensated for the extra overtime work they performed under the strain I have indicated. In spite of the fact that this overtime had to be put in, six carriers have been released; and under those conditions I think they are quite justified in protesting those dismissals.
Like the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) I had the case of an elderly man who had only fourteen months to go until he reached the normal retirement age of 65. In February of 1950 he suffered from a heart ailment as a result of which he had to be temporarily laid off. Now he has recovered sufficiently, or thinks he has, to take an inside job; but because of the economy move and because, as the Postmaster General has pointed out to me since, strong and fit men are available, he simply has to be retired because there is no place for him in the postal service. I am quite prepared to admit that a man with only nine years of service should not have as much consideration as a man who has worked two or three times as long, but like the hon. member for Cape Breton South I am concerned about these individual cases of hardship. A man on pension, with a pittance of $21.96 a month and no other source of income, is not in very good shape to carry on any kind of fight.
I think that is all I need to say on the matter. These are the conditions as I see them in my own city of Saskatoon.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this question. I do not suppose any of us can legitimately object to the change from two deliveries a day to one delivery in the residential portions of our cities; and to the extent that such a change will make a saving I do not believe there can be a great deal of complaint. But the way this new plan has been worked out certainly seems most unfair to the men actually delivering the mail. They are the public relations officers of the postal department, coming in contact with the people all the time. Certainly in my experience they have been doing a very good job in Vancouver for as long as I can remember. They are a fine, friendly group of men; the majority have served in the forces, and they deliver

the mail in all kinds of weather because even in Vancouver we do not have sunshine 365 days in the year.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: How about Fraser valley?


Howard Charles Green: I would not dare speak for
Fraser valley. Under this present plan these men certainly are not getting a fair deal. I have here a letter sent to the press in Vancouver by a postman's wife which I think sets out the situation very clearly. It says:
The post office officials at Ottawa are making our mailmen into downright slaves with this new rule of having one delivery. They arrive at their substations at 6.15 a.m., and there they have to sort mail until 9 and 10 o'clock. They are given two long routes, one in the morning and another one in the afternoon. On these routes they carry terrific loads which they cannot put down if the weather is bad and have to take them up and down the stairs of each house they visit. On Monday many of them in the Dunbar district did not finish till 6 o'clock at night. Utterly worn out, too tired to eat, they go to bed, after 425 calls. They receive no overtime, and many of the men who have been recently employed stand the chance of being let out. Any other worker will strike, but the government officials dare not.
Is this not slavery and liable to foster bitterness in the hearts of these men and their wives. I would like to know of any other worker who gets such a dirty deal.
These are the men who are asked to be loyal to their government.
Let us have a little justice and fair play.
A Mailman's Wife.
That letter was in the press some weeks ago. All the newspapers which have come in from the west coast within the last two or three days have contained further reports. After investigation by the officials of the association concerned, it is reported that every postman in the city is forced to work overtime now, andi gets no pay for it; further that the men have to deliver all the mail in their districts, no matter how long it takes. Most of them are lucky to get half an hour for lunch. This report also says as follows:
One man in "D" division had one hundred pounds of mail on his back when he left for his first delivery. Mr. Barber said. Another told the meeting he started work at 6.20 a.m. that morning and wasn't finished until 5 p.m. Supervisors making a spot check of postal stations since the new order went into effect stated that of 56 postmen checked, every one was working overtime, all without pay.
Now, I realize that there will have to be adjustments, and probably there will be some hardship. But I am afraid that the officers here in Ottawa have not realized just what an unfair burden is being placed on these men in the cities across Canada. I have checked this up as carefully as I can in so far as my own city is concerned, and I do not believe these men are getting a fair deal. Probably there have been too many men let out. I understand that the recommendation
Postal Service
made to the department here by the leading officers in some of the cities was that instead of letting out one-third, the cut should not have been more than one-quarter. That is only hearsay but it is obvious from the way this new plan is working out in Vancouver that something is wrong, and that the men are not getting a fair deal. I do hope the Postmaster General will take immediate steps to remedy this unfortunate situation.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in common with all the hon. members representing urban constituencies, I too have been receiving complaints about the economy program instituted by the Post Office Department. Perhaps I have received more complaints about the way in which economies were being made than about the economies themselves. May I say immediately that I am not opposed to the government starting on an economy campaign. I believe that, over the service as a whole, there is a great deal that could be done, and that perhaps there is a great need of an economy campaign. I do object, however, to the campaign starting with the little fellow. I think the campaign should not start right at the bottom, but it should start at the top and work down.
For the moment, let me deal with the way this thing has been put before me. I am told that the organizations of letter carriers were not consulted before the changes were made. They were simply told. In every industrial establishment today the working conditions are arrived at by agreement between the employees, who have an organization, and the employer. If there is to be a change in those working conditions then the employees, as people of importance because they do the work, are consulted. The change is made by mutual consent. I am told that is not the way this change has been made. The post office officials carried out a reorganization and said that instead of working for forty-eight hours tomorrow you shall work fifty-four hours from tomorrow forward. If a private employer treated his employees in that fashion in this country there would be an uproar because an ordinary self-respecting workman would not stand for that sort of treatment. I suggest that, although it is too late to do it in the proper way this time, at any other time when there is a reorganization of this kind contemplated the representatives of those who are doing the work should be consulted. Remember, the important people in every organization or in every line of work are those who do the work, because the work cannot be done without them. The services of the community

Postal Service
cannot be carried on without them and they should have some say in how their work is arranged.
There is no need for me to repeat what has been said by the hon. members for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) and Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). The problems in all the cities are pretty much the same, and I do deplore the way the Post Office Department has set about this reorganization.


Gordon Graydon: I listened with considerable interest to the discussion and to the criticisms which have been voiced by the members who have spoken about this matter tonight. I should like to point out to those who come from the urban parts of Canada that this problem with which they are being faced now, that is the treatment of letter carriers in urban centres, is not new for those of us who come from the rural parts of Canada. We have been experiencing this, I sometimes think, with less than the sympathy we deserve from many parts of the dominion who ought to be just as interested in rural mail deliveries as we are in the urban deliveries.
While it is perhaps repeating arguments that have been used many times in the past, nevertheless so long as the condition exists I take it that there will have to be on all sides of the house champions to bring the Post Office Department to its senses. This is just another example of the way the department of the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) has been running wild with regard to its organization and its treatment of those who do its work. On many occasions I pointed out to the minister and to his predecessors in office that I felt there was no justifiable excuse for not giving this parliament a special committee set up to deal with the Postmaster General's department. I then had in mind, of course, more particularly the question of the scandalous returns which are given to the rural mail couriers across the country. It is all very well to say that they are under contract; but that does not excuse the governmental sin of underpayment, even though they are under contract. Today there are many hundreds and perhaps thousands of rural mail couriers who are carrying the mails to rural mail boxes at less than the cost of operating, calculated on any kind of a business basis. When, in addition to that, I now hear complaints as to the way the department is operating in the urban areas, and when you add to that the fact that we badly need some kind of policy with respect to the suburban areas, I am confirmed in my opinion. In between the urban and the rural sections there has now grown up in many [Mr. MacInnis.J
parts of Canada, almost like a mushroom, a great suburban section of our population. Mail delivery is a matter of great inconvenience to some of them, because they have come out of the cities where they have been accustomed to urban delivery. They are now in the position where they are obliged to go long distances in order to get to their mail boxes or to their post office in the new place to which they have gone. As the minister must know, there is no end to the complaints with respect to the lack of proper servicing of those people in the new areas.
I want to say this to the minister, and' I say it with every constructive motive. I think he ought to pause and consider just where the Postmaster General's department is heading with respect to rural, suburban and urban areas. If there ever was a department that at any time needed to have a first-class review of what it is doing, I think it is the Postmaster General's department now. It is all very well for the minister to suggest that after all they are part of the great economy wave. The waves do not seem to be so high in other departments. I know of no reason why an economy drive should not be tempered with common sense; because, after all, economy without common sense results in a policy of penny wise and pound foolish. The fact that, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has so well put it tonight, they have picked upon the little man in the government service seems to me to be a good indication that there is a lack of common sense and good judgment in dealing with these matters. I suggest to the minister that, not only in debates on rural mail couriers but also with regard to complaints with respect to our suburban sections and now this acute criticism which has come to the government-and justifiable, if I may say so-with respect to the letter carriers in urban sections, enough evidence has been adduced, here to warrant us in demanding, before we go any further, that a special committee of this house be set up to review the way in which the Postmaster General's department is being operated'. I should think the minister would welcome that suggestion. I warn him that the public relations of the Postmaster General's department are rapidly deteriorating as a result of the manner in which it is being operated1 throughout the country. It is surely a department that is not so difficult to operate; because in many cases the public works department has in the past been providing the facilities in which it works. It has been receiving a revenue which enables it to operate and show a net profit generally on its year's operations. It seems to me that it should not be such a difficult department to administer that it should find itself in difficulties with respect

to urban, suburban and rural areas of the dominion. I am going to suggest to the minister that, before he goes any further, he ought to recommend) to this house that we have a special committee to deal with the Postmaster General's department and to see just where we are headed1. Before that committee we could call to give evidence those who ought to know perhaps better than most of us in the House of Commons do, namely the people who are affected: both those who are the customers of the department and those who are employed by it. Those are things that I think ought to form the basis for the setting up of a committee now. If the minister in previous sessions did not think that our arguments, when they dealt with rural mail couriers alone, carried sufficient weight to justify the setting up of a committee, surely, with the suburban and urban difficulties heaped upon the rural mail difficulties, there is now no justification for not giving parliament a special committee to deal with these matters. When a committee is set up I fancy that the minister will find that he will have a new and better perspective of just what is required in connection with the work of the department. In many respects the department has been a good one, but it is now getting into the position where, it seems to me, it is running wild; and I think it is about time that parliament took some steps to tame it before it gets completely out of bounds.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the hon. members who have preceded me in protesting against this practising of so-called economy with respect to the hardest working and lowest paid people in the postal department.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us quit practising economy all over.


An hon. Member:: You have.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We are in favour of economy but I think it is a poor thing to practise economy on the postmen. I think it would be a good idea to practise economy in some other places.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Two deliveries a day are a frill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before proceeding to say a few words in that respect, I want to support the presentation made by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) with respect to the necessity for a committee of this house to discuss the question of the administration of the Post Office Department. If I heard him correctly, the hon. member for Peel said that the public relations of the postal department had deteriorated to quite an extent in recent years. I think there is some validity in that statement. I think the postal officials
Postal Service
make decisions without any consultation with local organizations or local bodies; they make decisions with regard to the delivery of mail, mail service and post offices, and the first intimation that the people have about those things is that they simply have them. In my constituency there was in operation for fifty years a post office which cost this government $131 a month to operate; and after fifty years of service it was simply cancelled by a telegram being sent to the postmaster telling him to return his goods and chattels to the Vancouver office. I refer to the mail delivery service that operated on the Arrow lakes for fifty years, with steamers on those lakes; it was cancelled without any person in that district from Revelstoke to Trail being consulted as to the best possible way of saving this country some money, changing the arrangements and so on. I strongly support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Peel that it is about time we had a committee of this house to go fully into the administration of the Post Office Department. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) said, I think: Let's do away with all economy.


Mr. Fulion:: He has.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We realize the necessity for economy under certain conditions, but in this case I think we are fully justified in protesting at the form of economy that is taking place in the postal department where the first people you pinpoint are some of the hardest working and lowest paid people in the department. That is not only my opinion, and it is not only the opinion of the postmen in the district I represent, the men who are delivering the letters. It is the opinion of a good number of the citizens of the cities of Trail and Nelson, which happen to be in my riding, who realize what a hardship these new arrangements have placed upon many of these postmen.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, many of these postmen are veterans of the first world war. Some of them served in the same battalion as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and myself. Most of them are now getting on in years, and because of these rearrangements some of them do not know whether they can carry on.
To substantiate my argument in that connection I want to read from the Nelson Daily News two or three brief paragraphs which refer to comments made not by the member for Kootenay West, not by the postmen, but by a post office official in that district with respect to the arrangements so far as my riding is concerned. The heading is:
Nelson mail carriers find one-a-day delivery tougher.

Postal Service
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is tough on those high hills. The article reads:
On the surface it looks as if the carriers are doing less work. They are now doing an extra half walk apiece or one-and-a-half once a day where they were doing one walk twice a day.
The catch is that they carry much more mail per trip now than previously and have many more stops to make. On a normal day with one walk a carrier will make calls at about half of the addresses on his route. Now he carries more mail in three-fourths of a walk than he used to on a full walk and still has to go out both morning and afternoon.
The same official said:
The carriers are now having to work Saturday afternoons in order to provide one-a-day delivery all around. This amounts to four hours extra per week and is offset by the granting of one week's holidays to each carrier every twelve weeks.
The post office did experiment with high school students for the Saturday afternoon deliveries. However, lack of sorting experience had meant that the regular carriers were still needed Saturday afternoon so the plan was abandoned.
That is the comment of a post office official in my own1 district. As I said previously, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to appear inconsistent. I realize we have to make economies in certain directions. In association with other hon. members who have spoken previously I would ask the Postmaster General to give further consideration to this question of the delivery of mail by the postmen, because with the new arrangements that have been made at the present an undue and unnecessary burden has been placed on many older men who are unable to carry it, and a burden which I am sure the people of this country do not wish them to assume as the basis of an economy measure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the Postmaster General not going to make a reply?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; he will do it on his
estimates.


Gordon Graydon: Does that mean that you are going to give us the committee?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: No, on our estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems to me that the Postmaster General should say something in response to the protests that have been made.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Why?


Stanley Howard Knowles: He should at least give the assurance that the reasonable requests hon. members have been making will be given further consideration. If he is not____


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I made a statement about it three or four times in the house already.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Postmaster General has made several statements already, but he has not yet met the complaints that hon. members are giving to him tonight. I wish to take 
only a few minutes but it seems to me there are three things definitely wrong about the way in which the government has been handling this matter.
In the first place, as the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) has pointed out, the government goes ahead with measures of this kind without prior consultation with the men actually affected.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is not right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There was no prior consultation with the men themselves, and I am sure there would have been a lot less trouble over changes of this kind if an attempt had been made to practise-


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It was made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -the principles of collective bargaining which are on the statute books of this country so far as private corporations are concerned.
The second thing that is wrong with this change, Mr. Speaker, is that it is imposing heavier burdens upon the men who are still in the service. The plain fact of the matter is that every carrier on an urban route now during the course of his day has to carry in weight the same amount of mail that he carried before, plus half that much again. The result is the men are finding the load burdensome in terms of actual weight, and they are finding, according to the communications that I am getting from the men in Winnipeg, that instead of being called upon to work forty-eight hours a week as indicated by the Postmaster General, they are having to work up to as high as fifty-five hours a week. It seems to me that this arbitrary decision to reduce by one-third the number of walks, or to increase by fifty per cent the amount of territory to be covered by each man, will have to be reconsidered.
I hope the Minister of Finance will notice that none of us is making any particular point out of the loss of what he calls the frill of a second delivery a day. That might be done, but what we are mainly concerned about is the effect of this change on the men themselves.
The third thing that is wrong with this policy is the effect of it upon individual men. My colleagues, the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and others have referred to what it has done to older veterans, veterans of world war I, who have been in the postal service. May I, in addition to supporting what they have said, put in a plea for the position of the younger men, veterans of world war II. I have before me, as a matter of fact, the particulars of two cases, two out of twenty-seven letter carriers in the city of Winnipeg

who are being let out as a result of this policy. I should say that they are being kept on the list for temporary work.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Thirteen of them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it will be on a catch-as-catch-can basis, and it will also involve, so they understand, the loss of seniority. Here are two cases that are very much alike, two men who point out that during the depression years the going was tough, and they were unable to get the amount of education that they would like to have had. Came the war. Both of these men, the depression years behind them, served in world war II. I pick one of them in particular, a man who lives in the Westholme apartments in Winnipeg. He served five years and ten months in world war II, five years and eight months of which time he spent overseas. He has a good record in the service, and likewise a good record in the civil service for five years since the war, three years in another department, two years with the post office. He thought that he was on permanently. He thought that at last there was some security, some opportunity for him to make up for what he suffered during the 1930's, and for the contribution that he made during the war years. Now he gets this blow, and his language about it is not exactly parliamentary.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that on all three of these counts this policy is wrong and calls for reconsideration by the government without delay.


Mr. C. W. Hodgson. (Vicioria, Oni.):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take a few minutes of the time of the house to make a few remarks on this question. I have had a considerable number of complaints from my home town about the mail service, particularly from people who are shut in. The mail comes in there at eleven o'clock on Saturday. There is no mail delivery until Monday afternoon. When they go to the post office, the postmaster refuses to give a general delivery service.
All the mail carriers in my town are veterans, most of them veterans of the first world war. Probably the curtailment or the layoff was a little bit drastic. I received a letter today from a dear old lady saying that her regular mail carrier had been able to bring the mail on a two delivery per day basis, but the mail is so heavy now on one delivery per day he could not do the job. I should like to ask the minister whether in cases of this kind, where a man could handle the mail on two deliveries a day and because of the one delivery a day he cannot carry it, cannot do the job, anything will be done.
Postal Service
He becomes incapacitated, so far as that job is concerned. Will the department give that man a pension, or what are they going to do for him? Will they ask him to take some other job? Jobs for veterans of the first world war are not easily found. If they could not carry mail, then they could not do most other jobs. I think the minister is starting at the wrong end of the cat; he should have started at the head instead of the tail.
For instance, I see here a clipping from a paper-from the Auditor General, Mr. Watson Sellar-who says:
Travelling expenses-
I notice that in this particular year the portfolio has changed; but it shows that the other minister, the other Postmaster General, served a little less than five months, and spent over $5,000, or at least a thousand dollars a month, in travelling expenses.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: In the Post Office Department?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Yes.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: What year was that?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The present Postmaster
General came into power, and for the first seven months of his term he spent $7,000 in travelling expenses. You all know that we as members of parliament get allowances for our expenses. On top of that $2,000 you had another $7,000 for travelling expenses. That is equal to $40 a day for three hundred days a year.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: What is the hon. member citing from?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Watson Sellar.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, rubbish!


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: What paper?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The Ottawa Journal.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No minister of the government spent a thousand dollars a month for travelling expenses.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It was in the Ottawa Journal.


An hon. Member:: The Globe.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It is not the Globe.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You had better take the Auditor General's report, not the Globe and Mail or the Ottawa Journal.


An hon. Member:: It must be true, or they could not publish it.	.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: What is the hon. member quoting from? I would like to know how I have spent a thousand dollars in a month for travelling. I did not spend that much in a year.

Postal Service


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It gives all of them. This, for instance, is the Postmaster General's- seven month period and $7,000 is the amount of travelling expenses as quoted.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: What is the date and name of the paper?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: James McCook of the Journal staff.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: What is the date of it?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The date of the report is 1949-50.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: No, what is the date of the paper the hon. member is quoting from?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I am not sure, tout you saw it. You do not need to ask for it.


An hon. Member:: It must be between 1930 and 1935.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: No, it is the end of the fiscal year 1949-50.


An hon. Member:: Get the public accounts.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It goes on to say, showing the amounts spent for travelling by all of the ministers:
Postmaster General Bertrand, $4,658 for the period April 1-August 23, 1949, and Postmaster General Rinfret $7,341 for the period August 24, 1949 to March 31, 1950.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It must be for the whole department-not for me.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It is attributed to you; and it has the expenses of the other ministers here. You are starting at the wrong end of the cat. You should start with the minister to curtail expenses.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The statement is all wrong because I never had any amount like that.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Well, I still have the clipping here and I would be glad to show you.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Suppose you take the public accounts, instead of the clipping.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: This is a report from Watson Sellar. We will probably take it up in the public accounts committee, when the time comes, too. However, I do not want to hold up the minister's supplementary estimates. But there is no doubt about it that every cabinet minister saw this clipping. They don't need to pretend they are so dumb.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I must take exception; I never saw it. If I had seen it I would have issued a statement saying that it was absolutely inaccurate; because the public accounts do not show that any single minister of the government to my recollection spent $7,000 a year for travelling.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It is attributed to the Postmaster General, for seven months in office in that year.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: What is that again?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It is attributed to the present Postmaster General for the seven months in which he finished out the year, following Postmaster General Bertrand. His expenses were along about the same line, the same amount. And if the minister denies it-


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: On a question of privilege-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Now he will answer it.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I am only going to answer one point. It is absolutely untrue that during the seven months referred to by the hon. member my personal expenses have been $7,000. There has not been, as a matter of fact, one single account that has been sent by me for a personal account. The amount that is referred to by the hon. member must therefore be for the whole of the department.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It does not say for the whole of the department. I will read the whole paragraph.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Yes.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It is by James McCook of the Journal staff.


Mr. Riley:: What date?


Douglas Charles Abbott: What is the date?


An hon. Member:: Put up or sit down.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I will give the date, with the money spent. It is not too long ago; it only ended on March 31, 1950. It gives all the ministers' travelling expenses, and starts off with the travelling expenses of the Minister of Agriculture.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is this in order?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: For a man to stand up and read a newspaper? He does not give the date of the newspaper or any authenticity for it. He does not explain what it is, at all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes; a well known correspondent of the Ottawa Journal, a reliable man, and just as authentic as you are.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Postmaster General has denied it, anid the house is bound to accept his word.


An hon. Member:: Summon him before the bar of the house.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It says up to March 31, 1950.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Give the date.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The date of the expenditure is here; that is what you need.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Yes, the date of the expenditure is here, and I will give it if you will keep quiet for a moment or two.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: What is the date?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: When they are finished
squeaking-it must be getting near spring, Mr. Speaker. It sounds like crows.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Give the date.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Abbott took us to task, so-his travelling expenses were:
Finance Minister Abbott, $2,067.


Douglas Charles Abbott: For twelve months.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Yes.
Fisheries Minister Mayhew, $3,612; Justice Minister Garson, $2,453-for the same year.
This is the year ended March 31, 1950.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: What is the date of the
clipping?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Don't open your mouth so
wide, your teeth will fall out.


An hon. Member:: Brilliant!


An hon. Member:: Isn't he high class!


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Labour Minister Mitchell, $4,155; Defence Minister Claxton, $2,156; Health Minister Martin, $2,505- Revenue Minister McCann-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It seems to
me the hon. member should give the date and identify it.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, this paper is
one of the issues of February of this year. The article I am drawing attention to is by Watson Sellar. It is attributed to Watson Sellar, Auditor General.


Mr. Sinnott:: April 1.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Give us the date.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Postmaster General Bertrand, $4,658 for the period April 1 to August 23-approximately five months-


An hon. Member:: April 1 is right!


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: April 1 to August 23, 1949, and Postmaster General Rinfret, $7,341 for the period August 24, 1949, to March 31, 1950.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That will
hold them.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: That is the date they have
been yelling so loudly for-if the hon. member from Saint John-Albert (Mr. Riley)-or down there in the maritimes-heard it. I hope he
Supply
heard it and I hope he digests it. And I think when they are talking about cutting down on the veterans on the beats, the mail carriers, they are starting at the wrong end. They should start with the minister and his officials, and work down.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: A hustings speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $336,942.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
245. To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services and defence research and development, and to authorize total commitments for this purpose of $3,831,270,000 including authority notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to make commitments for the current year of $1,924,170,835 and commitments against future years of $1,907,099,165 against which commitments it is estimated that actual expenditures in 1951-52 will not exceed $1,595,050,000 of which $183,050,000 will be provided from section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, as supplemented by item 246, $1,412,000,000.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
471. Departmental administration, $1,199,818.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
171. Departmental administration, $278,399.
Item stands.
Douglas Charles Abbott: While we are on this question of travelling expenses-


An hon. Member:: Who is on the question?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Just a minute. On a question of privilege, I have got the public accounts here. I have the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1950.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Does the house want the truth in this matter or does it not?


An hon. Member:: Sure.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The public accounts for the year ended the 31st of March, 1950, on page Q-6 indicate that the salary of the Postmaster General is $10,000 and the motor car allowance is $2,000. That is the total of $12,000, the salary and the motor car allowance.


An hon. Member:: Is that revised or unrevised?
1168	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act Mr. Abbott: This is by the Auditor General, so I suppose it is revised. The note reads:
The above amounts were paid to:
Hon. E. Bertrand, for the period April 1 to August 23, $4,658.69; the Hon. G. E. Rinfret, for the period August 24, to March 31, $7,341.31.
The $7,341.31 is tor salary and motor car allowance. I do not know where Mr. James McCook got the figure of $7,000 odd for travelling expenses. That remains a mystery to that reputable writer of the Ottawa Journal.


Mr. Casselman:: Don't get excited.
Progress reported.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe for the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Ross (Souris), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Wright.
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, now everyone can relax because we are going to get back to the very soothing subject of wheat.


An hon. Member:: Let the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) relax too. Call him.


Clarence Decatur Howe: When I opened the debate on second reading of Bill No. 5 I said I did not intend to enter into a discussion of the five year pool which, of course, has nothing to do with the proposed amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. In view of the debate that has taken place, however, I think I should make some further remarks at this point.
Attempts have been made by opposition speakers to prove: (1) that returns to western farmers from the five year pool were unsatisfactory; (2) that the British wheat agreement should not have been entered into.
An attempt has also been made to distort the facts about the attitudes taken by the Canadian and the United Kingdom governments with respect to the fulfilment of the agreement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Who made that attempt?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I intend to show that the arrangements in effect during the five years under discussion were in the interests of the western wheat farmer, and that without these arrangements the situation today would be very much less satisfactory than it is. I intend to show that the Canadian and British 

governments entered into an agreement that was beneficial to both the Canadian producer and the British consumer, and that the terms of that agreement were fully observed on both sides.
However, I am not going to argue that if we could have foreseen in 1945 what was going to happen in the following five years we should have done exactly what we did.
I am sure we should have done some things quite differently. That is the advantage of hindsight, upon which members of the opposition lean so heavily. Nevertheless I firmly believe that in 1945 and 1946 the government took decisions which were fundamentally sound, and that have contributed to the stability and prosperity of the wheat growers. It is possible to calculate by some elaborate guesswork that a higher average price might have been obtained over the four year period had there been no British agreement, but these are hypothetical calculations. They are based on conjecture and not on fact.
The only solid fact in this present situation is that over a five year period the wheat grower realized an average return of about $1.83 per bushel for No. 1 northern wheat in store Fort William. When in the history of Canada has the wheat grower ever enjoyed such consistently high returns over such an extended period? Certainly not in the period between 1930 and 1935 when this country was governed by the Conservative party.


An hon. Member:: Who is making a political
speech now?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly I am making a political speech. When the hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party are making calculations about supposed losses under the British agreement they might try to calculate the losses suffered by western wheat growers during the early thirties when their party was responsible for wheat marketing. That would be much more interesting and a much more relevant calculation.


Mr. Cardiff:: What was the price of wheat in the United States in those days? That is a fair question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In 1932 No. 1 northern wheat at Fort William sold for less than 40 cents a bushel, and I will show later that the reason that price was low was that we did not have our share of the British market.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You have not answered my question yet.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend does not market western wheat very much. He does not know very much about it. The five year pool and the British agreement were an experiment in long-term stability. They were entered into

at a time of uncertainty at the end of world war II. No one knew what would happen. As I listen to the parties opposite criticizing the results of the five year pool I recall their attitude in this house. Could anyone at the end of the war have been more fearful of the future than the two main opposition groups in this house? As I remember it, they were predicting blue ruin.
But now, with the advantage of hindsight, they shift their position. Now they say that the government was wrong to strive for stability in markets. Now they say or imply that we should have refused to enter into an agreement with the British government assuring reasonable prices and an assured market over a four year period.


Major James William Coldwell: If I may interrupt, we did not say that; we supported the agreement when it was made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What about the losses under the agreement?


Major James William Coldwell: I have said nothing about the losses.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You have not but some of your followers have had a good deal to say about it. I think I said before, and I say again, that the time when you must decide whether an agreement is good or bad is when you sign on the dotted line, and we signed on that dotted line in 1946. That is when the decision had to be made and that is when it was made.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is nice to know your fellows all like it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government did not share the unreasonable fears of the opposition parties about the future. But when an opportunity arose to sell 600,000,000 bushels of wheat at assured prices to our best customer -more than had ever before been sold by Canada to that customer 'in any comparable period-we accepted. That decision was supported by the great majority of the western wheat growers and I am confident that they still support it. Everyone recognized that there were risks in such an agreement. There were risks on both sides. But it must never be forgotten that there were even greater risks in not entering into the agreement. The advantage of the agreement was that it minimized the risk. The wheat agreement was similar to an insurance policy. Because a man who buys an accident policy never claims under it that does not mean the policy should not have been taken out, or that the premiums should not have been paid. It is well to keep that in mind. If wheat prices in the last two years had fallen very substantially the shoe would have been on the other foot, and I do not think it would have been proper for the United Kingdom to ask us to accept
Canadian Wheat Board Act less than the floor prices provided in the agreement in order to reduce average returns to the open market level.
As I shall point out later, the have regard to clause is important but it did not mean, and we have never argued that it meant, that the United Kingdom should make up in the final two years any mathematical calculation of losses in the first two years. Five years ago the western wheat grower supported a policy of stability at reasonable prices. Today, unless I am seriously mistaken, he still supports that policy. There are some, however, who do not believe in the policy of stability at reasonable prices. Some of those people are today criticizing the five year pool and the British agreement. I suggest to those who now think they see an opportunity of gaining some political advantage by attacking the government on the results of the five year pool and the British agreement that they should consider carefully whether they are not playing into the hands of those who prefer to return to the old boom and bust type of wheat marketing.
The test of any policy is its results; and I believe the results of a policy which returned an average of $1.83 a bushel on the basis of No. 1 northern in store Fort William for nearly 1 [DOT] 5 billion bushels of wheat sold over a five year period require no apology; and I am making none. The wheat economy prospered during that period as it deserves to prosper and as I hope and believe it will continue to prosper. If a policy can produce that kind of result it meets the only test that matters. The essential fact is that producers are being paid on the basis of $1-833 on their deliveries for five successive crops.
Let us look at the relevant facts about wheat marketing in each of the five years. In September, 1945, my predecessor, Hon. James MacKinnon, announced an export price of $1.55 a bushel until further notice, together with the government's undertaking that returns to producers would not be permitted to fall below $1 per bushel for the next five years. This policy was the genesis of the five year pool which was announced the following July when the contract with the United Kingdom was signed. As a result of the five year pool producers are receiving $1.83 per bushel, basis No. 1 northern, on all deliveries of about 235 million bushels during the 1945-46 crop year. The final payment is 28-3 cents over the export price of $1.55 which remained in effect during that year, and is well above the open market price in other countries. The average prices received on the farm in the United States during the 1945-46 crop year was $1.49 a bushel. The man who grew wheat and marketed it in this

Canadian Wheat Board Act pool in 1945-46 did1 not lose very much. Obviously he gained 28 cents per bushel over any other method of marketing.
Coming now to the first two years of the contract, the crop years 1946-47 and 1947-48, again the essential fact is that the producers are receiving $1.83 on 335 million bushels delivered in the 1946-47 crop year and on 244 million bushels delivered in the 1947-48 crop year. These turned out to be years of acute shortage of wheat in the world, and admittedly exorbitant prices could be obtained for marginal quantities in marginal markets. It should be recalled', however, that in order to finance the necessary imports of the United Kingdom, including wheat, the United, States loaned the United Kingdom $3,750 million and Canada also loaned the United Kingdom $1,250 million. The bulk of these loans were utilized more rapidly than anyone anticipated. Any higher prices charged for wheat would have ground down those loans more rapidly. As it was, the situation could only be met adequately by the Marshall aid program the United States placed in operation in 1947.
I think it is a fair question to ask those who are claiming that the producers lost money in those first two years of the contract: from what source additional payments, in the absence of a contract, might have come? Even in those years, when the United States government supported their domestic wheat prices, and exported wheat without payment, the prices American producers received at the farm were $1.90 and $2.29 in the two crop years respectively. Our own efforts to extend credits and accommodate our overseas buyers during this period, as hon. members are well aware, resulted in such a loss in exchange that we had to adopt rigid exchange conservation measures.
From 1947 to 1949 the United States permitted Marshall aid funds to be used for the purchase of Canadian wheat, and though large stocks of wheat were accumulating in the United States that government respected the United Kingdom-Canada agreement and did not demand that the Marshall aid funds be used to purchase United States wheat instead of Canadian wheat. However, before the 1949 crop came on the market United States wheat was declared in surplus supply, which automatically stopped the use. of Marshall aid funds to buy Canadian wheat. Just think of the importance of that agreement during those years. Because of the agreement, the United States paid money to Canada for supplying wheat to Britain, instead of giving away her own surplus wheat to England, at a time when the surplus in the United States was becoming burdensome. Those who are

making up the equation to show losses might very well put in that intangible for a very considerable price indeed.
Passing on now to the 1948-49 crop year, which was the third year of the contract, producers will receive $1.83 for deliveries of 293 million bushels. Throughout this crop year the payment difficulties of the United Kingdom continued acute. To put it bluntly what we faced here in Canada was the very real possibility that the United States would drive Canadian wheat out of our traditional markets. This actually occurred in the European markets with the exception of the United Kingdom, and the fact is that the Canada-United Kingdom wheat agreement was of the greatest value at this time in retaining our position in the United Kingdom market. As a matter of fact we have a very serious problem ahead of us in regaining markets in continental Europe which are now being supplied by the United States under Marshall aid. It was for that reason the government sent a mission to Europe last year for the express purpose of finding out how to regain a foothold in some of those markets. What the Canada-United Kingdom wheat agreement actually accomplished was to enable us to hold our position in the United Kingdom market. The United States government respected the agreement, and in fact went so far as to provide a very substantial amount of United States dollars, $175 million to be exact, which enabled the United Kingdom to finance her wheat purchases from the 1949 wheat crop under the agreement. This amount was provided as the result of negotiations which took place in Washington early in September, 1949. In evidence of those negotiations let me quote from a letter of September 13, 1949, from Mr. Paul G. Hoffman, economic co-operation administrator, to Hon. Charles F. Brannan, United States secretary of agriculture:
Dear Mr. Secretary:
As you know, one of the measures proposed by the United Kingdom during the three-power financial conferences was the financing with ECA grant funds of the British requirements for wheat from Canada.
The facts, with which you are familiar, are these:
The United Kingdom is the traditional and normal outlet for the major portion of wheat exported by Canada. Three years ago these countries entered into an agreement under which the United Kingdom was to purchase 140 to 160 million bushels of wheat annually from Canada. The quantity of wheat involved for 1949-50, the final year covered by the agreement, is 140 million bushels at an agreed price of $2 a bushel in store Fort William. The total dollar f.a.s. cost of the wheat involved for 1049-50 amounts to $309 million.
You have on several occasions advised us that wheat is a surplus agricultural commodity under the provisions of section 112 (d) of the Foreign Assistance Act, 1048, and it is my understanding that this

condition still prevails. Effective with delivery after the first calendar quarter of 1949, the ECA discontinued authorizing the use of its funds for the purchase of Canadian wheat, and as a consequence, the United Kingdom has been using its free dollar reserves to meet the deficit in its Canadian accounts, a substantial element of which consists of Canadian wheat.
Recently, there has been a very severe drain on United Kingdom gold and dollar reserves. This drain, if not halted, would quite certainly vitiate the progress towards economic rehabilitation and recovery which the United Kingdom has made and remove all prospects of achieving the objectives of the Foreign Assistance Act, not only in the United Kingdom but in all probability in the other countries participating in the European recovery program. It is, therefore, a vital necessity to take all steps possible to end the drain on British gold and dollar reserves.
In an effort to avoid this grave contingency and to extend such help as is within our power, we propose, under the provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act, to agree in part to the British proposal and authorize the use of $175 million of ECA grant funds to finance a portion of this year's purchases of Canadian wheat by the United Kingdom. Aside from the vital importance of such action to European recovery, we believe that the proposed action is also in the interests of agricultural producers in this country, in that it will not result in any over-all decrease in U.S. wheat exports and will facilitate additional exports of other agricultural commodities, both to Canada and the United Kingdom.
In weighing the losses under the agreement, let them weigh in the $175 million supplied by the government ini the United States to pay Canada for wheat shipped to Britain, which it is very probable Britain could not have bought without that assistance. Incidentally that assistance was barred under the strict terms of the Marshall aid plan.
Mr. Speaker, I can well imagine how the members of the opposition would have denounced the government if Canada had been pushed out of the United Kingdom market in 1948-49 and 1949-50 by Marshall aid wheat. I can testify personally, for I took part in the negotiations, that such a result most certainly would have occurred without the British wheat agreement.
In completing this survey of our marketing situation throughout the five year pool, I should mention the developments during the 1949-50 crop year in which producers will have received $1.83 per bushel on deliveries of 320 million bushels. As I have already mentioned, our sales in that crop year to the United Kingdom were partly financed by ECA funds. We had a firm sale to the United Kingdom of 145 million bushels at a price of $2 per bushel, which was 20 cents per bushel more than the international wheat agreement price for that year. This assured market was very important to us in a year in which we found some difficulty in finding other markets for the balance of our exportable supplies. In fact, we carried into the present
Canadian Wheat Board Act crop year some wheat supplies that would have moved earlier, had we been able to find markets for them. Again, I say the British wheat agreement needs no apology. It was the right thing to do at the right time. It was by no means a one-sided contract. It was beneficial to the Canadian wheat grower as well as to the British consumer.
Now I come to the third point, whether or not the British government lived up to the terms of the agreement. At the risk of some repetition, let me review the terms of the agreement and the course of negotiations between the Canadian and United Kingdom governments. As hon. members know, the agreement called for the delivery of 160 million bushels of wheat and flour during each of the crop years 1946-47 and 1947-48 at a base price of $1.55 per bushel for No. 1 northern, in store Fort William-Port Arthur. During each of the two final years a quantity of 140 million bushels was involved at prices to be negotiated. In 1948-49 the price was to be not less than $1.25 per bushel and in 1949-50 not less than $1 per bushel.
I now quote from the agreement itself. I should like to fix this have regard to clause in everyone's mind so it will not be misquoted as it has been on almost every occasion on which it has been mentioned:
The actual prices to be paid for wheat to be bought and sold' within the crop year 1948-49 shall be negotiated and settled between the United Kingdom government and the Canadian government not later than the 31st December, 1947, and prices for wheat to be bought and sold within the crop year 1949-50 shall be negotiated and settled not later than the 31st December, 1948. In determining the prices for these two crop years, 1948-49 and 1949-50, the United Kingdom government will have regard to any difference between the prices paid under this agreement in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years and the world prices for wheat in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years.
It will be noted that the price for the 1948 crop was to be determined before December 31, 1947, and the price for the 1949 crop before December 31, 1948. In other words, the prices were to be determined seven months ahead of the beginning of the relevant crop year. Our two governments met ini the autumn of 1947 and determined upon a price of $2 per bushel for the 1948-49 crop year. Again in December, 1948, we met and determined upon a price of $2 per bushel for the 1949-50 crop year. If we knew then what we know now about world wheat supply and demand in the months that lay ahead, we might have been able to negotiate a higher price. In the circumstances then prevailing, $2 plus five to six cents carrying charges looked like a good price for 140 million bushels of wheat, and I think it was a good

Canadian Wheat Board Act price at which to sell such substantial quantities of wheat, particularly as the United Kingdom at that time anticipated that the international wheat agreement price would be $1.70 per bushel and that wheat could be purchased from countries other than Canada for the international wheat agreement price.
In January, 1949, it was agreed that final settlement under the have regard to clause would not be made at that time, but would be made before July 31, 1950. I went to London in May, 1950, for discussions having to do with marketing the 1950 crop. While there I discussed the wheat agreement, at the request of the United Kingdom. I reported thereon to the cabinet and to this house following my return. I had no authority, or indeed no reason to conclude any agreement with the British government. All I could do, and all I did do, was to report the position taken by the British government.
In brief, the British government stated positively that they had discharged their obligations under the agreement. They pointed out what I have pointed out in this statement, namely that there were risks on both sides in entering into an agreement for four years ahead covering such large quantities of grain.
That was an understandable attitude and, while I might have wished that the British government could have seen the advantage to them of making some further payments to Canadian wheat growers, I could not conscientiously say that they were in default under the agreement. I so reported to the cabinet, to this house and to the western wheat producers.
My own words in Hansard on June 5 of last year, though uttered on the spur of the moment and in the heat of debate, put the position as I have just stated it and I have no desire to alter them in any way.
On November 13, 1950, I gave a speech in Regina to the Saskatchewan wheat pool during which I dealt with the same point and perhaps with greater decision. I quote from my remarks at that time:
Now I personally went to London in May of this year for these final discussions. I found the attitude of the British government to be an understandable one. British authorities felt that they had taken sufficient forward risks during the life of the contract in guaranteeing us a market and they considered they had discharged their obligations under the "have regard" clause.
Quite apart from this issue, however, but out of respect for the way in which Canada and the United Kingdom had worked together in each other's interest in these post-war years, the United Kingdom undertook to purchase from Canada in the 1950-51 crop year-
That is the current year.
-its full requirement for North American wheat, provided price and quality to be not less favourable


than that obtainable from other North American sources. Probable United Kingdom requirement was estimated to be from 100 to 120 million bushels of wheat and flour on international wheat agreement terms. This undertaking was given with the knowledge that there would be little if any E.C.A. aid on purchases in Canada, and I have no doubt that the eminently fair way with which Canada has dealt with the United Kingdom under the contract these past four years had much to do with their giving us a forward assurance of a market for the present crop year, even though E.C.A. finance is available for any wheat or flour purchased in the United States.
As I have said, the British government has discharged its legal obligations under the agreement and is not in default. Subsequently, however, the Canadian government considered it advisable to inform the United Kingdom government of the views of certain producers' groups to the effect that sufficient account had not been taken in the final settlement of the so-called have regard to clause.
Accordingly, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) mentioned the matter to Mr. Attlee when he was on a visit to Canada at the end of last year and again the Prime Minister had discussions in London in January. It was never suggested to the British government at any time that they were in legal default under the agreement. It was pointed out, however, that the existence of dissatisfaction among wheat producers in Canada about the results of the agreement could have unfortunate consequence for future trade relationships between our two countries and that the British government might wish to reconsider their earlier decision. My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), made similar representations a few weeks ago. As the house knows, however, the British government did not see fit to make any further payments.
That was a perfectly legal and proper decision for them to make under the agreement. The Canadian government, while recognizing that the legal obligations of the British government under the agreement had been fulfilled, took a different view of the over-all results and decided to pay into the five year pool the $65 million that remained under the United Kingdom loan act.
Personally, I think it was a mistake that there should have been included in the agreement such a loosely-worded have regard to clause. It has been a source of much misunderstanding in both the United Kingdom and Canada. I think the British government itself is partly to blame for the misunderstanding, for the speech by Mr. Strachey in Winnipeg undoubtedly led many producers to believe that the United Kingdom would act on a more generous interpretation.

Nevertheless, the agreement without that clause was by no means one-sided. It produced substantial benefits for Canadian producers as well as British consumers. It resulted in the highest average price for wheat ever realized by western wheat growers over a five-year period. But the have regard to clause was included, at the suggestion, as I recall it, of the United Kingdom government. Such a clause is not capable of precise meaning. The United Kingdom government took one view of it, which from their point of view was understandable. Our producers took another attitude which was equally understandable. Nevertheless, a clause in an agreement that is not subject to legal interpretation must inevitably be interpreted by the party that must do the paying. The other party may not agree, but he has no option but to accept.
That, hon. members of the House of Commons, is my view of the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement. I believe it was a good agreement. I believe it has been greatly to the advantage of the Canadian producers that that agreement was made. I cannot believe that we would have been able to deal with all the hazards involved in the marketing of those five crops without the British wheat agreement. I presume that we shall continue to have arguments as to the losses under the agreement. I do not know just from what point of view losses can be reckoned. People talk about the domestic price in the United States and they talk about the class 2 price of Canadian wheat. The domestic price of wheat in the United States at this moment is, I believe, about $2.42 a bushel. The price of class 2 Canadian wheat is probably about $2.18 a bushel. The international price of wheat today is probably about $1.87 a bushel. One can say that we can start right away to figure losses based on the fact that we are selling on the international wheat price. I do not know of any foreign markets to which the United States is sending its wheat and getting payment of the domestic price in cash. I think they are still operating largely under Marshall plan financing. Canada has posted a price of $2.18. They might as well make it $2.75 for all the effect it would have, because we have not sufficient milling wheat this year to fill our international wheat agreement, and therefore we are not in the market with any sizeable quantity of class 2 wheat. That is the position today. The position was similar in past years when there was a domestic price in the United States and a class 2 price in Canada. They were prices at which marginal quantities of wheat could be sold by both countries. It was not the price at which the bulk of the export wheat of the United States
Canadian Wheat Board Act was marketed. It was marketed under ECA funds and as a gift. It was not the price at which any very substantial quantities of Canadian wheat were marketed. But nevertheless it is very misleading and very fictitious to accept either the domestic price in the United States, the Chicago price or class 2 wheat price as representing the world price. They were not the same, and none of them represented anything more than the price which its name implies.
I might point out that in the years 1934 to 1938 which are more or less typical of marketing in pre-war years, our percentage of the British market was 52-5 per cent. In the year 1947 our part of the British market was 82-5 per cent. Of the crop grown in 1948 our wheat took 72-9 per cent of the British market, and for the year 1949 our wheat held 82-3 per cent of the British market. This year we would have had practically the entire British market had we been able to fill it. Unfortunately the frost damage in western Canada has made it impossible for us to fill even our quota under the international wheat agreement, as far as Britain is concerned; but they are taking anything we can offer them in the way of milling wheat.
It is well to keep in mind that our second market in the pre-war days was the Netherlands; and I may tell hon. gentlemen that we have hardly sold a bushel of wheat to the Netherlands since the war ended. Our next biggest market was Belgium. Belgium has supported our wheat, has bought sizeable quantities in the post-war years, for the reason that their supply of United States dollars was somewhat better than other countries. Italy was a great market. We are just now getting back into the Italian market in something like a substantial way, but there are other markets, which we have lost entirely for the reason that they were quite happy to buy wheat from the United States with ECA funds.
If anyone can view the position of Canada as a result of the four year agreement and say that it was a bad agreement, and quibble about whether we lost money under it or made money under it, that is their privilege; but I say that I am very happy the agreement was made. I am happy the way it has worked out, and I deplore the suggestion that the British government has not played fair with the Canadian people.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Who made that suggestion?


Major James William Coldwell: I think that every hon. member in this house will welcome the statement that has been made tonight by the Minister of Trade

Canadian Wheat Board Act and Commerce (Mr. Howe). My regret is that this statement was not made when this debate was first initiated. Had it been, a very great deal of the ill feeling that has been engendered, as I have very good reason to know, in western Canada, would not have been engendered. Local newspapers are coming in to Ottawa at the present time -I see my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle over there, one from his constituency, for example-with articles written by government supporters in this house denouncing the British government for breaking the agreement, for doing just exactly what the Minister of Trade and Commerce says was not done. And I am happy indeed tonight to think that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been able to come before the house and make the statements that he has made.
I want to say to him that when this agreement was initiated, when it was before the house, we supported it. We believed, as the minister has said tonight, that it would give the western farmer some stability in his price. We believed that it was an excellent idea to try to get as large a share as we could for a period of years of the British market. We did say that if-as on August 15, 1946, it was quite evident it was going to do-inflation developed in this country and the cost of production rose, then at the end of the agreement a compensatory adjustment should be made, and that compensatory adjustment should come out of the federal treasury of Canada; that we could not go back to the British government at the end of the time and say: The costs of production in Canada have risen; the agreement was not as advantageous as we expected it to be, and therefore we expect you to pay something more than you have paid.
I remember very distinctly making that statement, and reiterating it; for I looked it up the day before yesterday in the debates on that occasion. I reiterated that opinion and that suggestion three or four times during the course of my speech on behalf of the members with whom I am associated, and suggested that if that occurred a compensatory adjustment should be made. That is what our amendment seeks now.
I did so on these grounds, that if the cost of production rose this government, having the control of the economy, would be responsible for making that compensatory adjustment. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will recollect that he rose in his place that evening and pointed out to me and to the house that just as $200 million had been appropriated a few months before for the support of agricultural

prices other than wheat, a similar appropriation could be made if necessary for the wheat producers.
Since that date the costs of production of the eight principal products entering into the production of a bushel of wheat have risen from 128 points on August 1, 1946, to 194-2 points on August 1, 1950. That is the reason why in western Canada there was an agitation last fall, when the crop was frozen in the summer, when other conditions intervened, for a further payment than that which might have come from the agreement.
I wanted to make that clear because that was our position then. It is our position today.
We have never argued on the basis of what the price of wheat was to Great Britain, what the price of class 2 wheat was elsewhere, and made a comparison with the United States markets. We have pointed out that the cheap loaf enjoyed by the Canadian people during the war years was subsidized, not by the government of Canada, not by all the Canadian people, but by the prairie farmers who grew No. 1 wheat.
I listened to the Minister of Agriculture the other evening when he suggested that the amount was not as high as some people were saying, but that it probably was in the neighbourhood of $48 million; and it is on these two count? that we have suggested, and I still suggest to the government of Canada, that it was its obligation to make any further compensatory adjustments that the producers of western Canada were entitled to. And over the past few days, over the past week, I have asked a number of questions of the Minister of Agriculture. I must say that in all my experience in the house, extending over fifteen years, I have never seen a more reprehensible exhibition than the answers to those questions. I want to say this, as I said to some of my colleagues this morning, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has come out of this well, and that nowhere in those questions and answers could I find anything other than he has admitted tonight. But when the Minister oi Agriculture was dealing with some of those matters I felt the house was being misled and was in danger of being deceived-and 1 say that is true of the country and true oi the western producers.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent came in this afternoon he made a statemen to the house. I have not a copy of it, bu some of my colleagues took notes of it, an< I took a few notes. The result is that, puttini these notes together, I understood him to sa; exactly what the Minister of Trade and Com merce said tonight, that when he was ii

London he discussed this matter with the United Kingdom authorities, and that the United Kingdom took the position that all the obligations had been fulfilled on their part under this contract.
I recollect that when I asked the minister, earlier in the course of the debate, if he had agreed in London, the answer was no; if he had brought back a memorandum-and I might say to the house that when I was asking about bringing back a memorandum I was guessing: I had no knowledge of such a thing existing. I was just probing to find out. The minister said Yes, that he did, and that what was done with that memorandum was done in Ottawa. And from the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon that is made abundantly clear.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce said tonight, as he said before, as I understood the Prime Minister to say, that he said to the government in Great Britain that he had no authority to make an agreement, but that he would have to report the matter here and that whatever settlement was made would have to be made by the government in Ottawa.
And I have noticed!, too, from the questions and answers in this debate, that when the proposal-for such it was-made by the authorities in Great Britain to the government of Canada, through the Minister of Trade and Commerce, was approved by the cabinet, according to the Minister of Agriculture-and I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce-it was approved unanimously. The Prime Minister this afternoon, if I am not mistaken, said that after the discussion the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was the proper minister to do so, advised the Chancellor of the Exchequer- and I wrote down these words-that the Canadian government "was in accord with the conclusions"-and the Prime Minister nods his head-contained in what I understood to be the official document or official minute of the meeting held by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and representatives of the United; Kingdom in May of 1950.
If my understanding of what the Prime Minister said is correct-and I think it is, because the Minister of Trade and Commerce has confirmed it-the matter was settled very definitely and unanimously in Ottawa and the government of the United' Kingdom was so informed.
Now, I wish we had known that at the outset. I wish the impression that has gone across this country, the feeling that has been worked up among some hon. members in the
Canadian Wheat Board Act house-one the other night, when I was speaking about letters received stating that a boycott of British goods was under way in western Canada, said, "That is right; it serves them right"-or words to that effect-the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore)'-


Mr. Decore:: On a question of privilege.


Major James William Coldwell: And down in Saint John, New Brunswick-


John Decore: I never made that statement.


Major James William Coldwell: You did not?


John Decore: No.


Major James William Coldwell: I am glad to know it.


James Arthur Ross: I think it was the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene).


Major James William Coldwell: 1 am sorry. I hope the names I have used will toe left out of the record. But that was my understanding and what I was told.


John Horne Blackmore: Someone did, anyway.


Major James William Coldwell: Someone did; however, that is by the way. But when British cars were being unloaded at Saint John the other day, some hon. members said, "Why do they not take them back again until they have made a proper deal for our wheat?"


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Major James William Coldwell: As the Minister of Trade and Commerce said tonight, the British market is the market we have got to have if we are going to maintain the economy of western Canada. We have got to have it; we have got to have it. And one of the reasons some members supported that agreement so wholeheartedly and, incidentally, defended it across the country-I know I went through my great wheat producing constituency after it was made, defending it from the critics-one of the reasons we defended the agreement was, apart from the stability it was giving, that it was guaranteeing to us re-entry, or rather a maintenance of that market which is vital to western Canada and, indeed, vital to the whole economy of Canada.
I find it very difficult to understand why we were led to believe that the British government had not come through.


John Horne Blackmore: Who caused it?


Major James William Coldwell: It is perfectly true that when the Minister of Agriculture went to Great Britain there was a $65 million credit left out of $1,250 million. The proposal, I am told, was that the British would allow this to be used for the five year pool, that they would never be asked to repay it. And if that is the case, from the point of view of the Canadian people that would have been

Canadian Wheat Board Act a dishonourable subterfuge. Because the Canadian people would have been paying that $65 million in any event as they are going to pay it now.
I intended to make a speech in the debate. It had been my intention to take Hansard of last Thursday and Friday and to place on record this evening some of the questions and answers given in that debate. I am not going to do that now, because after the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce this evening there is no necessity to do it. The record will speak for itself. I am happy to be able to stand in the house tonight and say that, while I think the western grower is entitled to a compensatory adjustment from somewhere, because of the greatly increased cost of production that arose as a result of the removal of controls, and the tremendous increase in the cost of living, yet I believe with the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the wheat agreement was on the whole a good agreement. I hope that we may continue to have as large a portion of that great market as we have enjoyed in the last five years. I hope that the wheat agreement we have had with the British will be rounded out into an international agreement.
I hope that this great product can be stabilized. I remember well the years before the war. I remember when the best of wheat was marketed in my constituency at 20 cents a bushel.


Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Major James William Coldwell: I do not mind.


Alan Carl Stewart: Did you as leader of the C.C.F. party at any time protest to your fellow socialist government in Great Britain that a better price should be paid under the wheat agreement? That is question number one.


Major James William Coldwell: Just a moment. I do not believe that it is the privilege of any hon. member of the Canadian parliament to approach the government of any country on a question of this kind except through the government of his own country.


Alan Carl Stewart: Then you did not do it.


Major James William Coldwell: Did I have the right to do it?


Alan Carl Stewart: Did you?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Major James William Coldwell: If I had done such a thing-


An hon. Member:: You would have got it in the neck.


Major James William Coldwell: -I would have been criticized severely for it.


Mr. Hansell:: By the same man, too.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not support any government either provincially or federally between 1930 and 1935 under whose policies wheat was marketed at 20 cents a bushel at our local elevators. When my hon. friend was a member of a government in Saskatchewan-


Alan Carl Stewart: Would you mind another question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Major James William Coldwell: May X continue?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: The
hon. member does not have the consent of the hon. member who has the floor.


Major James William Coldwell: It is not the function of any hon. member of this house to interfere in negotiations between governments. I can say quite honestly that I have not done that sort of thing and I do not intend to do it. However, I can say that in 1941 when the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), His Honour the Speaker, Mr. Arthur Slaght, Mr. Harry Jackman and I were in Great Britain, at that time we did have an opportunity to take up the low price of wheat that was being paid to the producers with Lord Woolton, who was then the food controller.
I criticized very sharply at that time the prices that were paid, but that was under entirely different circumstances.


John Horne Blackmore: In 1941.


Major James William Coldwell: In 1941. The hon. member remembers it. I am not going to recount any sharp exchange that occurred at that time, but it was a very sharp one. Those were different circumstances. Therefore I say, Mr. Speaker, that I am glad that this matter is being cleared up. One thing only remains, and that is to have the document, from which I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) quoted this afternoon, laid on the table of the house. I know that another government has to be approached but I should not think there would be any difficulty in securing permission to place that document on the table of the house. Of course, if there were not another government involved, the document having been quoted by a minister should be laid on the table of the house. In the last couple of years I have even found that a letter quoted by a private member of the house has to be laid on the table, although I do not think that is a good ruling.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is my hon. friend suggesting that I quoted from the document?


James Arthur Ross: No, the Prime Minister.


Major James William Coldwell: The Prime Minister. The Prime Minister promised to approach the British government. As I say, I have finished

all I want to say tonight. I am glad indeed that this matter has been cleared up. I hope that those who have been spreading information, which the minister himself says is without foundation, will do their best to remedy the false impression which they have created.


Mr. Laing:: Would the hon. member permit a question? I assure him it is a fair one.


Major James William Coldwell: Certainly.


Arthur Laing: Has he any figures to adduce
which would support his contention of an enormously increased cost of production of wheat?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Arthur Laing: I know of some in the university of Saskatchewan who do not quite support that view.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes. The very figure I
gave that the cost of oil, machines, the eight basic supplies that are needed in the production of wheat, increased from-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Twenty-five per cent.


Major James William Coldwell: -an index figure of 128 to 194-2 between the 1st of August, 1946, and the 1st of August, 1950, four years. I think that is a good answer to my hon. friend's question. Of course one could put the actual figures on the record but I have not them before me at the moment. I think anyone could look them up and I am sure he will find that the cost of farm implements has more than doubled. The cost of distillate, oil, and gasoline has gone up tremendously. The cost of binder twine has gone up in a spectacular manner.


An hon. Member:: Fertilizer.


Major James William Coldwell: Fertilizer, all sorts of things.


Mr. G. F. Higgins (Si. John's East):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Cole (Maiapedia-Maiane):: Wheat from Newfoundland.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I think I am probably sticking my neck out in getting into this argument.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Francis Higgins: But I am prepared to do so. I am doing so particularly because after all I am entering the ring between two very tough fighters, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). Frankly I am not long enough in this house to be too frightened by either one of them. I never did expect to see one first-line minister slapping down another as happened here tonight. I have put it in very vulgar language, if you will, the language that I know best,
Canadian Wheat Board Act but it appeared as though the Minister of Trade and Commerce deliberately slapped down the Minister of Agriculture tonight. I do not know of any other way we can put it. That to me, Mr. Speaker, is a most extraordinary thing.
Frankly I do not know what to make of this debate. I have been trying to follow it. I know very little about wheat, and I certainly know less now than I ever knew before. It reminds me of a portion of "Through the Looking-Glass" which I hope you will allow me to read to you. After all, it will lighten this very serious matter. It is as follows:
"Can you do addition?" the White Queen asked. "What's one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one?"
"I don't know," said Alice. "I lost count."
"She can't do addition," the Red Queen interrupted. "Can you do subtraction? Take nine from eight."
"Nine from eight I can't, you know," Alice replied very readily; but . . ."
"She can't do subtraction," said the White Queen. "Can you do division? Divide a loaf by a knife- what's the answer to that?"
"I suppose-" Alice was beginning, but the Red Queen answered for her. "Bread-and-butter, of course. Try another subtraction sum. Take a bone from a dog; what remains?"
Alice considered'. "The bone wouldn't remain, of course, if I took it-and the dog wouldn't remain; it would come to bite me-and I'm sure I shouldn't remain!"
There are some dogs' bones that have been bitten tonight.
"Then you think nothing would remain?" said the Red Queen.
"I think that's the answer."
"Wrong, as usual," said the Red Queen; "the dog's temper would remain."
"But I don't see how-"
"Why, look here!" the Red Queen cried. "The dog would lose its temper, wouldn't it?"
"Perhaps it would," Alice replied cautiously.
"Then if the dog went away, its temper would remain!" the Queen exclaimed triumphantly.
Alice said, as gravely as she could, "They might go different ways." But she couldn't help thinking to herself "What dreadful nonsense we are talking!"
"She can't do sums a bit!" the Queens said together, with great emphasis.
"Can you do sums?" Alice said, turning suddenly on the White Queen, for she didn't like being found fault with so much.
The Queen gasped and shut her eyes. "I can do addition," she said, "if you give me time-but I can't do subtraction under any circumstances!"


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I shall not read very much more.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Gordon Francis Higgins: "Of course you know your A B C?" said the Red Queen.
"To be sure I do," said Alice.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
"So do I," the White Queen whispered: "we'll often say it over together, dear. And I'll tell you a secret-I can read words of one letter! Isn't that grand? However, don't be discouraged. You'll come to it in time."
Here the Red Queen began again. "Can you answer useful questions?" she said. "How is bread made?"
"I know that!" Alice cried eagerly. "You take some flour . .
"Where do you pick the flower?" the White Queen asked. "In a garden or in the hedges?"
"Well, it isn't picked at all," Alice explained-
I shall get to the end; I see hon. members are becoming impatient.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I shall finish very quickly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order. I would not want the house to gather the impression that I am going to stop the hon. gentleman from reading a piece of literature. I had occasion once to call an hon. member to order while he was quoting Shakespeare and some got a wrong impression. This time I am calling the hon. member to order not because he is quoting from literature but because I think he is quoting too much of it into the record. If he has only a little more he may finish; if he has a page or so, I must ask him to cease.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I have just another sentence.
"It's too late to correct it," said the Red1 Queen: "when you've once said a thing, that fixes it, and you must take the consequences."
As I understand it, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has made a statement, and he must take the consequences for it. I am only going by what I am told, but his statement was made, according to my information, immediately prior to the election of 1949. At that time he is reported to have told the farmers of the west that they would be taken care of as far as their wheat was concerned. By that I presume it was intended that the Liberal government would pay_ the necessary money about which the minister was speaking. That was the statement; I do not know if it is true.


An hon. Member:: Which one was that?


Gordon Francis Higgins: Well, the minister knows. I have a very high regard for the minister; I think he is one of the doughtiest fighters in the house, and I greatly admire the way he carries on a debate. But we must remember that he is a cabinet minister, responsible for his actions; and if he made that statement to the farmers then he must deliver the goods. Where is he going to get the goods to deliver? Is he going to take the money out of my pocket?


An hon. Member:: You have none.


Gordon Francis Higgins: You are so right. I have none, but I do not want to lose my jacket also. That is the position. Tonight from what I could understand-and I took down what I thought he said-the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) told us the western farmers got a good deal for their wheat in the past five years, the best possible deal they could have had; that they got as good a price in those five years as they ever got in their lifetime. That is what I understood him to say. If that is correct, why then must $65 million more be paid to them? That is the question I do not understand. If the farmers got as much as they possibly could, why rob the Canadian taxpayer of $65 million more? I think that is a fair question.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does the hon. member suggest that the government was justified in forcing the Canadian farmer to sell wheat to the Canadian consumer at a price which for a long time was even less than the British price?


Gordon Francis Higgins: I am not able to answer that question except to say that if the western farmers were foolish enough to make a deal like that without protecting themselves they will have to put up with it. That is a strong statement; I come from a place where we do not grow wheat, and I am probably all wet because of that. But to be fair about it let me qualify the statement. What I tried to say was that I am in favour of the western farmers getting this money if-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Well, if hon. members will only wait I will finish-if in emergencies the maritime and Newfoundland fishermen and maritime apple growers and Ontario farmers are helped out by the federal government. Then I will be satisfied to see this $65 million paid. I will vote for it, and vote for more. But until we get equal treatment all across the country I am not satisfied.
We have a very delicate situation ourselves, and when I say ourselves I mean the people of Newfoundland!, by reason of the cod fisheries and the negotiations going on with the United Kingdom. Prior to our entering confederation with Canada the British government arranged the convertibility of sterling. The bulk of our trade in salt fish was done in European markets, and as you know Great Britain is banker for the European countries. If Portugal bought fish, Britain would arrange that we in Newfoundland got dollars in return. That arrangement was continued until the first year after confederation. Now we owe Great Britain some $63 million, and that debt was assumed! by
i

Canada on confederation. The present situation is that the dominion owes the British government, on Newfoundland's account, some $63 million, but Britain contends that money is repayable not in sterling but in dollars. Now I am told that this year Britain is not prepared to undertake the conversion of this sterling. Britain says, "If you are going to pay back this money you cannot pay it back in sterling; you must pay it back in dollars." What I am afraid of, and I hope I am not blaming the minister unduly, is that all this ill will that has been stirred up in Britain over this wheat deal will gum up the works in relation to our sale of codfish. That is a very serious matter. You talk about having trouble in connection with wheat. If you get the Newfoundland fisherman in trouble with his codfish you will really be in for it.
I have made my point as well as I can. We had1 a clear statement this evening; and like the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) I think it is nice to learn that Britain is not being blamed for what happened under this wheat contract. The people of Britain have enough to put up with without being blamed in a matter of this nature. After five years of so-called peace Britons generally are putting up with an austerity program which we in Canada could never even contemplate. To blame these people, and to stir up ill will as has been done over this British wheat contract, is the most ungracious thing that the eldest daughter of the British commonwealth could possibly do. I am happy to hear that statement made tonight by the Minister of Trade and Commerce even though it was at the expense of the Minister of Agriculture. I believe the Minister of Agriculture will recognize and admit that it was no fault of the British people, and whatever idea he may have had of convincing the Attlee government to pay this money, there was no particular reason why the British people should have been blamed1 in the manner in which they have in this country within the past few weeks. I believe most members in this house will agree with that.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, because I believe there are other people who want to say something in this debate, I am in favour of paying this money, and more besides, provided always that the maritimes get the same deal when they need; it, and that Newfoundland gets the same deal when she needs it, and the Ontario farmers as well. I do not believe that money should be taken from the Canadian taxpayers to pay this $65 million unless we get that deal right across the board generally. Those are my sentiments. Where the money will come from, to pay it, is another matter.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, this debate on the wheat situation and the marketing of Canadian wheat has been one of the most interesting debates to which I have ever listened in this House of Commons. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), western Liberal farmers, Canadian farmers in general, all parties made some interesting comments and produced interesting figures. The upshot of the whole affair has been that the people across this country have had firmly implanted in their minds the fact that the British government did not play the game by Canada. We have had ample evidence to show that feeling was brought about in Canada, and it is most unfortunate. Great Britain has been our greatest customer and will be our greatest customer. It is a market we badly need.
There is one group of people in Canada, and that is the great mass of taxpayers, who must be wondering how much longer this government, when it enters a deal, will use every means in its power to try to get more money for the people it represents, although the government is firmly convinced it is not entitled' to it according to the statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce tonight. Several ministers, even the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) of this country, insinuated that there might be some more dole for the western farmers by getting it from a group of people who have gone through hell on earth during the war and since. Finally when they are told that they have been amply paid for the commodities received, they put their tails between their legs, come back to Canada and tell us tonight from the bottom of their hearts that they believe it is a fair deal.
In spite of the fact it is a fair deal some of the generous members of the cabinet wish to dig down into the taxpayers for a present to the western farmer of $65 million. If there is anything left in the pockets of the Canadian people, may I suggest that the government do likewise for the farmers in my part of the country. As a matter of fact, they should do it for all the people in Canada. That kind of money, found in the bottom of the pocket or half way down, and distributed to some people, is getting beyond a joke to the taxpayers. It is almost time this government made up its mind to whom it owed money, and paid it. It should- stop fooling the public or digging down for large amounts that are shocking the taxpayers of this country. If they believe they owe anybody else, or want to make a gift or a justifiable payment, please let us know without wasting the time of parliament trying to explain why they do these things. Let us make it general
1180	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act and cause general inflation. Let the Canadian dollar go down to such a level that nobody wants it.


Mr.  A. J. Baler@The Balllefords: Mr. Speaker, in rising at this time after listening to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) tonight, I believe I shall cut my remarks rather short. However, I am going to say a word or two in connection with the bill that started this debate. I am referring to Bill No. 5, which is an act to amend the wheat board act. I am in accord with every clause in this bill. I think it will assist the farmers in getting quicker returns for their grain which is marketed through the wheat board.
Our western wheat is paid for on the basis of deliveries at Fort William, Vancouver and Churchill. With respect to the last port I have just mentioned I wish to compliment the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) for the increased use that has been made of that port during the last crop season. I would urge upon them to continue to increase the use of that port in the coming season. I may have more to say in that connection at a later date.
I should like to make one or two comments on observations that were made during this debate. The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) rather surprised me. When we farmers are talking about comparisons of prices with those in the great country to the south of us, the articles we generally mention are machinery, motor cars, refrigerators and radios. Lo and behold, when the hon. member made comparisons the other night he read from an editorial in a Winnipeg paper which compared prices in Minneapolis and Winnipeg for five articles. Those articles were sugar, T-bone steak, pork tenderloin, milk and eggs. Of those five articles, four of them are produced on Canadian farms. While I was home, I may tell him, I was milking cows almost every day, and feeding chickens. I want to tell him that I think it is only now that the dairy farmer and the chicken raiser are coming into their own.
I was amazed that he should pick out those particular items and complain to us that they were higher in Canada than they were in the United States.


James Arthur Ross: The processed article; the raw material is higher in the United States.


Mr. Bater:: I never interrupted my hon. friend.


James Arthur Ross: Be fair about it.


Mr.  A. J. Baler@The Balllefords: There was another statement made by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe 

(Mr. Rowe). I believe that by his own admission he stated that he was a horse trader. Now, Mr. Speaker, he may know how to trade horses but I do not believe he knows much about the wheat acreage reduction to which he referred in his remarks. The hon. member referred to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), with whom I am sure the western farmer will still tag along. This is what he said at page 1091 of Hansard:
"Boys, you stood by me in the past when I was wrong. I ask you to go along with me now when I have repented and am going to be right; because I have made a mistake; I have made a failure. I have lost you half a billion dollars. There is no teacher like experience. You have paid for your experience with interest, cash on the barrelhead. You have had good crops. God gave you good ground. You paid high prices for big combines to harvest your crops fast, so you could go south in the winter if you had enough acres; and if you did not have enough acres, I paid1 you for summer fallowing, even."
In connection with that summer fallow bonus may I say, and I believe most western farmers will agree with me, that was an arrangement or agreement made between the British government and Canada. I believe the British government stated at that time that the submarine menace made it difficult for them to get boatloads of grain across. They requested the Canadian government to send over bacon and said that the British people would plough up more ground to grow wheat. I believe I am correct in that statement. It was for that reason we were paid this $2 per acre for one or two years to change over our system of farming in western Canada, and to reduce the wheat acreage so that we could grow more grains and produce the bacon for which Great Britain was in dire need.
There was no trouble with that agreement. It is true that that -agreement was made possibly with a different government. I do not know whether or not that made any difference, but we never heard of any trouble about it.
I see that the hour is getting along, and I believe that Mr. Speaker is waiting for a vote. As to the subamendment that is now before us, it is quite easy for those who have not the responsibility of government to move such an amendment. I sincerely hope that when this vote is taken we can show the people of western Canada and of all Canada that we consider we had a fair agreement with Great Britain.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to speak tonight in such a way as I thought would establish the truth which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) so well expressed before -this house. I have viewed with the

deepest regret the development of a campaign to smear Great Britain. That campaign has involved several of the responsible members of this house, as can easily be shown by quotations from their remarks in one place or another, and in their ridings. I was intending to answer the kind of thing which they were endeavouring to establish. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has indicated, matters have in some places got to fever heat in this country. People have almost reached the point where they will hardly discuss Britain -at all; and all that has occurred with no justification at all, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has so well put it. But since the Minister of Trade and Commerce has relieved me of that burden, I shall devote myself to certain other matters which I believe it would be well to probe into.
To my way of thinking, as a result of the discussions we have had thus far, four obvious conclusions have been established. The first is that the Canadian wheat growers ought to receive a final payment of 25 cents a bushel; not less and probably a good deal more, as the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) well developed the other day in his speech. The second conclusion is that for paying -any part of this 25 -cents a bushel Britain appears to have no kind or degree of obligation, either legal or moral. I can now say that without any question at all, since the Minister of Trade and Commerce has spoken. The third conclusion is that the Canadian government ought to pay that 25 cents a bushel. The fourth conclusion I am afraid has to be this-and I hope I shall not use words that are too harsh or too strong in their implication in saying what I feel I must say: Some persons connected with the Liberal Canadian government, it appears, have deliberately contrived to -cast upon Britain blame and odium which justly should rest upon a certain group of members deep in the Liberal party itself.
This general scheme was well set forth and well developed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) the other day in his speech which is recorded at pages 1093 to 1098 of 1951 Hansard. I do not propose to go into all the details that the hon. member went into, but I am going to assemble some of the quotations which he placed on record, and I am going to give the men who are involved a chance to clear their names before this house and before the Canadian people. The hon. member for Moose Jaw referred first of all to the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson). This whole thing has been worked up in a gradual way. Somebody drops a match, then somebody makes another move 80709-76
Canadian Wheat Board Act somewhere else; and the first thing we know, the whole prairie is afire. Here is the first match that was dropped. Here is what the hon. member for Kindersley said, according to the hon. member for Moose Jaw. I have not checked the source, but I assume that what he said is correct. He is usually accurate. The hon. member for Moose Jaw, as reported at page 1096 of Hansard, had this to say of the hon. member for Kindersley:
This is what he had to say at page 150 of Hansard:
"I am going to say how pleased I am that the British government has considered fulfilling the 'have regard to' clause in the five-year wheat pool contract ... I am not going to mention any alternatives because I am confident the British government is sound and fair enough to see that justice is done.
That is a mild statement, but an indication that the British government had not just been quite ready to do what is right. Then later he said:
... the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) took up the cudgels and had this to say:
"I repeat that the government of Canada must impress on the government of Britain that the 'have regard to' clause must be carried out."
In the light of what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has just said, that is a remarkable statement. Then the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith) had this to say, as quoted by the member for Moose Jaw at page 1096 of Hansard:
I urge the government to crack the whip and get going on this negotiation or discussion with the United Kingdom and let us have a decision on what is going to happen in respect to the five-year pool payments.
That is another remarkable statement, in the light of what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said tonight.
Then the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer), as quoted by the member for Moose Jaw at page 1096 of Hansard, had this to say:
I believe more emphasis should be placed on the honouring of a contract between two countries.
Then the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) caps the climax with this remarkable outburst, as quoted at page 1097 of Hansard:
John Decore (Liberal-Vegreville) charged that the British government "has failed to carry out its moral obligations" to western Canada under the "have regard to" clause of the contract . . .
Had the British government assumed its obligation the farmer would have received substantially more and to which he is entitled.
We in Canada spared no efforts to help the British people-
Imagine that, Mr. Speaker.
-when our help was urgently needed. The U.K. socialist government let us down. We Canadians never expected this kind- of treatment.
If anybody can explain that series of expressions on the part of these new members

Canadian Wheat Board Act who are venturing to rush in where angels fear to tread, I hope he will do so.


An hon. Member:: Who put them up to it?


John Horne Blackmore: It looks as though someone had put these men up to this thing and that each had said his little piece, made his little bow and gone out. I believe that every hon. member of this house and every person in this country will be positively astounded that a thing like this could have occurred. It is a matter which is utterly reprehensible. Whoever organized that thing has done something that no man with responsibility should ever contemplate for a minute. In times like these, when the enemy is right at our door, and when every person is straining to the limit, it is astounding that anyone should start an outrageous thing like this for the purpose of sowing discord and unhappiness in the Dominion of Canada and cause those feelings to be reflected by the British over on the other side of the water; it is something that just passes human comprehension that a thing of that sort could have been done.
The Liberal strategy to blame Britain-and it must have been the Liberal strategy of somebody-was, to put the matter bluntly, nothing but a dastardly political device for dishonouring Canadian commitments both to Canada's wheat growers and to the British. Hon. members who participated in this pernicious program of propaganda calculated to delude the Canadian people into doubting Britain's good' faith as to her honouring the Canadian wheat agreement of 1946 to 1950- those men have done Britain and Canada a serious disservice. I think that mere justice demands that words as harsh as these should be used.
May I take a moment to sum up each of the four conclusions that I have come to. The first one was that Canadian farmers ought to receive a final payment of 25 cents a bushel at least on their wheat. I know that the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) was expressing very honourably and straightforwardly the point of view of a large number of people in the Dominion of Canada. To him it looks as though it is proposed to take from the Canadian people's pockets a vast sum of money and give that money outright to one section of the Canadian people. To him that looks to be completely unsound in every way.
I shall not have time to deal with this matter adequately tonight. I shall speak as long as I have an opportunity to and then I shall go on the next time this debate comes up; because, after all, it is a problem with which the Canadian people will have to come to grips.

Here was a great body of producers, Canadian producers, the farmers of western Canada. They were producing a commodity absolutely essential in the conduct of the war. We have manufacturers in Canada who were asked at the beginning of world war II whether they would produce guns, tanks, aeroplanes, bullets and other munitions of war. They said: We will not produce one single unit until you guarantee us costs of production plus a certain percentage. Now, I think no one in the House of Commons, unless it may be some of my C.C.F. friends, will question the soundness of their position. I surely do not.
If their position was sound as producers of the munitions of war, will anyone tell me that the position of the western farmer is not equally sound if he says:	I want to be
guaranteed the cost of production plus a just profit.
The question at issue is this. Have the western farmers in the production of their wheat been guaranteed the cost of production plus a just profit?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am in favour of giving
them whatever they are entitled to, but let us be honest and stop the continuous passing out of the taxpayer's money without any warrant for it.


John Horne Blackmore: That is a most admirable comment made by one of the most honest members in this house, the hon. member for Simcoe North. He just boils right up over a lot of things, and always tells us what he thinks. I honour a man who does that.
The point is that since the farmers in that area have begun to produce wheat this government right here in Ottawa has allowed the freight rates to rise on those farmers, increasing their costs tremendously, the cost of everything that they use to produce their grain, the costs of sending the grain to market. Can anybody tell me to where that will lead? The hon. member for Simcoe North shakes his head. Very well, there is the trouble.
The cost of production of the western farmer includes the food, clothing and shelter which constitute the standard of living. The hon. member knows what has been happening to that. It has gone right up until it has just become unbearable to the western farmer.
In addition to that the western farmer, in order to get the cost of production for 1949 to 1951, has to take in his stride the colossal loss which has resulted from the great frost which in 1950 prevailed all across that country. Can anyone compute what that is? And maybe next year they will have not a

frost but a drought over the wide area or a plague of grasshoppers. When you count all this kind of thing you see it is extremely difficult to tell what the costs of the western farmer really are.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Tell what the price of
machinery is.


John Horne Blackmore: I have been mentioning the cost of production. Some hon. members wish me to mention the cost of machinery. I did not come with the figures all in mind, but I must say that the cost of machinery rises so rapidly and so consistently that a man has to look up the newspaper every day to find out what the price is.
The cost of a tractor, which farmers all over the west now use, has risen from $2,800 five years ago to $4,800 today. Where has the difference gone to? Who has got that difference? Who has got that $2,000? It has come to Ontario to the Massey-Harris people. There
Canadian Wheat Board Act is no question about that. You ask, how would Massey-Harris be able to get it? Well, they were able to get it largely because the government of Canada had put up a substantial tariff barrier which protected them and took away from the farmers that sum of money and put it right in the hands of the Massey-Harris Company, and the farmers could not do a thing about it.
On motion of Mr. Blackmore the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will continue consideration of this bill, Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935. Then we will take up Bill No. 130, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, and later on Bill No. 79, respecting Indians.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
80709-76;
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, March 13, 1951